Miyerkules, Enero 29, 2014

Fallacies of Ambiguity



-          These are fallacies that occur because of the ambiguous or unclear use of language.

Types of Fallacies of Ambiguity
1.       Equivocation
2.       Accent
3.       Amphiboly
4.       Division
5.       Composition
6.       Hooded Man

1.       Equivocation
Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.
Examples:
Brad is a nobody, but since nobody is perfect, Brad must be perfect, too. (The word “nobody” has equivocal meanings.)
Don’t fall in love because everything that falls breaks. (“Fall” is equivocal; one is falling in love, while the other one is a literal falling of objects).

2.       Accent
The accent fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity due to the different ways a word is emphasized or accented.
Example:          
A member of Congress is asked by a reporter if she is in favor of the President’s new missile defense system, and she responds, “I’m in favor of a missile defense system that effectively defends America.”
With an emphasis on the word “favor,” her response is likely to favor the President’s missile defense system. With an emphasis, instead, on the words “effectively defends,” her remark is likely to be against the President’s missile defense system.
“You shall not bear false witnesses against your neighbor.”
The intended meaning of this passage is that I should not speak ill against my fellow human being. Fallacy of accent is committed when I interpret this passage differently by emphasizing or accenting one of its words. For example, if the words “false witnesses” is accented, then I mean that it is alright to bear witnesses against my neighbor as long as it is true. If I emphasized, “neighbor”, then I might understand the passage as saying that it is alright to speak ill against someone as long as he is not my neighbor.

3.       Amphiboly
                This is an error due to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways during the reasoning.
Examples:
“Lost and found: an umbrella by an old lady with two broken ribs.” How poor this old lady was; she has two broken ribs!
If Croesus wages a war against the Persians, he will destroy a mighty kingdom. (Whose mighty kingdom will Croesus destroy: the Persians’ or his own?)

4.       Division
We commit the fallacy of division when we take separately what must be taken as a group.
Examples:
                “Askalz is a good soccer team. Therefore, each of its members is a good soccer player.”
                “The choir signs excellently. It must follow that each member of the choir sings well.”

5.       Composition
                The opposite of division, this fallacy occurs when we take as a unit or group what must be taken separately.
Examples:
“Each member of the team is a good player. Therefore, the team is a good team.”
“Each human cell is very lightweight, so a human being composed of cells is also very lightweight.”

6.       Hooded Man
This is an error in reasoning due to confusing the knowing of a thing with the knowing of it under all its various names or descriptions.
Examples:
“You claim to know Socrates, but you must be lying. You admitted you didn’t know the hooded man over there in the corner, but the hooded man is Socrates.”
“I thought you knew your father, yet you could not even recognize that man who was wearing a coat over there, and that was your father.”


Huwebes, Enero 23, 2014

Fallacies of Defective Induction

These are arguments whose premise seems to provide ground for the conclusion but proven to be insufficient upon analysis.
1.       Ad Ignorantiam or Appeal to Ignorance
2.       Ad Verecundiam or Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
3.       False Cause
4.       Converse Accident or Hasty Generalization
5.       Anecdotal Evidence
6.       Faulty Comparison
7.       Far-fetched Hypothesis
8.       Confusing an explanation with an excuse
9.       Guilt by Association


1.       Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or Appeal to Ignorance
It is arguing that a belief is false because it is not proven to be true, or true because it is not proven to be false.
Examples:
                                                “Nobody has ever proved to me that there is God. So God does not exist.”
                                                “The suspect is guilty because there is no proof that he is not guilty.”

2.       Argumentum ad Verecundiam or Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
This fallacy comes when one argues for a claim on the basis of someone who has no knowledge about the matter at issue.
Examples:
“John Lloyd, a notable actor, said the Biogesic is safe and effective. So, Biogesic is indeed safe and effective.”
“My genius professor in Math said that Alexander the Great was gay. No wonder why most historians do not include this fact in their books.”

3.       False Cause
This is an error when one attributes a false cause to a phenomenon.
Examples:
                                                “I passed the interview because I wore a red t-shirt.”
“The Philippines has a rapid increase in GDP because many buildings are being erected.”

4.       Converse Accident or Hasty Generalization
This fallacy consists in making a generalization on basis of few instances of a case in question. Stereotyping is also a form of hasty generalization.
Examples:
“We have passed through two villages already, and people there were not nice. Therefore, all people in the villages of this province are not nice to strangers.”
“Indigenous people from hill top tribes are illiterate. There were indigenous people studying here and I had to send them back to grade school because they do not know how to read and right.”


5.       Anecdotal Evidence
This is a fallacious generalizing on the basis of some story that provides an inadequate sample. If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, then your reasoning contains the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence.
Examples:
“They say smoking is dangerous to our health. My father is a chain smoker and he has never been sick in all his life. So, I don’t believe that smoking is dangerous to our health.”
“I don’t think education can bring us success. There are billionaires who are not even college graduates like Bill Gates and Henry Sy.”

6.       Faulty Comparison
Occurs when you try to make a point about something by comparison, and you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing.
Examples:
“We gave half of the patients pain reliever and paracetamol to the other half. After one hour we observed that those whom we have given pain reliever are more energized than anyone else. Hence, we concluded that pain reliever is more effective than paracetamol.”
Wearing Addidas shoes is more comfortable than wearing Levi’s jeans.

7.       Far-fetched Hypothesis
This is the fallacy of offering a bizarre (far-fetched) hypothesis as the correct explanation without first ruling out more mundane explanations.
Example:
“Look at that mutilated cow in the field, and see that flattened grass. Aliens must have landed in a flying saucer and savaged the cow to learn more about the beings on our planet.”

8.       Confusing an explanation with an excuse
It is treating someone’s explanation of a fact as if it were a justification of the fact. Explaining a crime should not be confused with excusing the crime, but it too often is.
Examples:
“She happened to kill her husband out of her hatred of him. She has been a battered wife for almost ten years. So, she is not guilty.”
“I cheated in the exam because I had no other choice. I was sick the night before the exam so I could not study, and I realized that if I would not pass, then my scholarship could be withdrawn.” [Explains a student who was caught cheating]

9.        Guilt by Association
Guilt by association is a version of the ad hominem fallacy in which a person is said to be guilty of error because of the group he or she associates with. The fallacy occurs when we unfairly try to change the issue to be about the speaker’s circumstances rather than about the speaker’s actual argument.
Examples:
“Senator Cruz is pro-RH Law because he is a friend of those senators who authored the RH Law.”

“He is a thief because he comes from the family of thieves.”

Martes, Enero 21, 2014

Fallacies of Presumption

These are arguments whose conclusion is supported by false or unproved assumptions.
1.       Accident
2.       Complex Question
3.       Petition Principii or Begging the Question
4.       Ad Consequentiam or Appeal to Consequence
5.       Ad Hoc Rescue
6.       Avoiding the Issue
7.       Red Herring
8.       Excluded Middle or Black/White
9.       Selective Attention
10.   Gambler’s
11.   Inconsistency
12.   Slippery Slope
13.   Straw Man

1.       Accident
                It is when we reason with a generalization as if it has no exemption.
Examples:
“People should keep their promises, right? I loaned Dwayne my knife, and he said he’d return it. Now he is refusing to give it back, but I need it right now to slash up my neighbour who disrespected me.”
“The pull of gravity from this object is 23 kg. So it follows that at the top of Mt. Everest, it is still 23 kg.”

2.       Complex Question
You use this fallacy when you frame a question so that some controversial assumption is made by the wording of the question.
Examples:
“Did you use a knife in killing that man?” [Man: “No”] “Aha! So you did kill him!”
“[Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going to continue your policy of wasting taxpayer’s money on missile defense?”

3.       Petitio Principii or Begging the Question
Also known as circular reasoning, this type of fallacy argues by drawing out conclusion that is the same with the premise although expressed differently.
Examples:
“We have the freedom of speech because we have the freedom to express our own opinions.”
“Murder is an immoral act because it is wrong.”
4.       Argumentum ad Consequentiam or Appeal to Consequence
It is arguing that a belief is false because it implies something you’d rather not believe.
Examples:
I don’t believe in your DNA test result. He is my son so we must have the same genes. (The father would not believe since it would imply that the child is not his son.)
Jose Rizal cannot have concubines. He is our national hero.

5.       Ad Hoc Rescue
This fallacy is committed when one tries to rescue a belief by denying a contrary evidence or examples that would falsify it.
Examples:
“If you take Vitamin C every day, you will never get a cold.” [Friend: “But I tried it last year for several months and I still got a cold.”] “Well, I’ll bet you bought some bad tablets.”
“Filipinos are hospitable. If you met a Filipino who is not hospitable, then he is not a true Filipino.”

6.       Avoiding the Issue
It is when one who is supposed to address an issue changed the topic that is not relevant to the issue under consideration assuming that by doing so one can easily dismiss the issue that has to be addressed.
Examples:
When a person is being asked about the status of his marriage but then answered by talking about the schooling of his children, the status of his job, and his relationship to his parents.
“My wife is not a criminal. You see, she’s a good gardener and she loves nature.”


7.       Excluded Middle or Black/White
                You commit this fallacy when you unfairly limit someone to only two choices.
Examples:
“Well, it’s time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?”
“Either you join our group or you are against us.”

8.       Selective Attention
It is the tendency to look only for evidence in favor of one’s controversial hypothesis and not to look for disconfirming evidence, or to pay insufficient attention to it.
Example:
She loves me, and there are so many ways that she has shown it. When we signed the divorce papers in her lawyer’s office, she wore my favorite color. When she slapped me at the bar and called me a “handsome pig,” she used the word “handsome” when she didn’t have to. When I called her and she said never to call her again, she first asked me how I was doing and whether my life had changed. When I suggested that we should have children in order to keep our marriage together, she laughed. If she can laugh with me, if she wants to know how I am doing and whether my life has changed, and if she calls me “handsome” and wears my favorite color on special occasions, then I know she really loves me.

9.       Gambler’s
Gambler’s fallacy occurs when the gambler falsely assumes that the history of outcomes will affect future outcomes.
Examples:
“I know this is a fair coin, but it has come up heads five times in a row now, so tails is due on the next toss.”
“There was no raid for three months now. So, it’s probably unsafe to continue our drug production next month since there would probably be raid.”

10.   Inconsistency
This fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we accept a claim that logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
Examples:
“I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are white. But I just don’t think that white women love their babies as much as our women do.”
“I agree that everything has a price. But I believe that life is priceless.”

11.   Slippery Slope
This fallacy occurs when one claims that a certain action will lead to an event or chain of events which we do not want.
Examples:
“Do you drink coffee? I am pretty sure that caffeine will not be strong enough, then you will take something stronger, maybe a diet pill. Then, something even stronger. Eventually, you will be doing cocaine. Then you will be a crack addict! So don’t drink that coffee.”
“If we let homosexuals marry each other, then sooner or later, we would also allow people to marry their pets.”

12.   Straw Man
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position.
Examples:
You claim that we must allow same-sex marriage. Therefore, you also claim that marriage is never sacred. If that is your claim, then why should partners (even same-sex partners) be married at all? [The straw man here is you claim that the opponents said that marriage is not sacred even though they did not].
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, our worthy opponents here believes that capital punishment or death sentence will not help decrease the number of crime incidents in this country. And for that claim they have led themselves into a dangerous pit hole: the belief that every form of punishment is ineffective. As we all know, that is a mistaken belief. Hence, we won this case. [Straw man: your claim that the opponents believe that every form of punishment in ineffective].


Lunes, Enero 20, 2014

Informal Fallacies - Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacy is an error in reasoning. It consists in making arguments whose premise or premises do not really provide sufficient grounds for the conclusion.
-          Fallacies can be formal or informal. When the error in reasoning is due to the invalidity of the structure (form) of argument, the fallacy is called formal. If the error is on the content (not the structure) of the argument, the fallacy is called informal.
-           There are four (4) general classifications of informal fallacies.


A.      Fallacies of Relevance
-          These are arguments whose premise is irrelevant or “far” from the conclusion.

1.       Argumentum ad Populum
2.       Appeal to Emotion
3.       Argumentum ad Misericordiam
4.       Argumentum ad Baculum
5.       Argumentum ad Hominem
6.       Agumentum ad Crumenum
7.       Ignoratio Elenchi
8.       Two Wrongs Make a Right
9.       Scapegoating
10.   Rationalization


1.       Argumentum ad Populum or Appeal to People
It is when you suggest that a claim is correct because it what everyone believes or because it is part of a social tradition or culture.
Examples:
“Facebook must be the best Social Networking Site because almost all people have facebook account.”
                “There is nothing wrong with Rido because it is part of our culture.”

2.       Appeal to Emotion
When you make claims by arousing feelings of anger, fear, grief, love, outrage, pity, pride, sexuality, sympathy, relief, and so forth.
Examples:
“You would let me borrow money from your again, right? Besides, what friends are for?”
“I really feel sorry for your lost. He is a good friend of mine too…and if he were alive, he would really want you to buy this product. So, just print your name here in the list and I’ll deliver the product personally to you after his burial.”

3.       Argumentum ad Misericordiam or Appeal to Pity
                It is a type of appeal to emotion wherein the arguer appeals to pity in order to advance a claim.
Examples:
“You cannot convict this man because he is the only breadwinner in the family. If he’s gone, his family will die in hunger.”
“Please pass me in this subject because my father would kill me if he learned that I failed again.”

4.       Argumentum ad Baculum or Appeal to Force
Also called as Scare Tactic, this type of appeal to emotion consists in arguing that a claim must be accepted as true or right; otherwise, something evil may be afflicted by the arguer.
Examples:
“Vote me.” (Speaking while holding a gun)
“I am the best rider, right? If you won’t agree I’ll kill you.”

5.       Argumentum ad Hominem or Attack Against the Person
Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself.
Examples:
“His statements are lies. Don’t you see that this man is an ex-convict?”
If a drunkard tells you to stop drinking, do not believe him.

6.       Argumentum ad Crumenum or Appeal to Money
This fallacy uses the error of supposing that, if something costs a great deal of money, then it must be better, or supposing that if someone has a great deal of money, then they’re a better person in some way unrelated to having a great deal of money.
Examples:
                                                “He must be the president of our organization because he is rich.”
                                                “That restaurant serves delicious food because their food is very expensive.”

7.       Ignoratio Elenchi or Irrelevant Conclusion
This is an error when one draws an irrelevant conclusion from supposed to be significant premises.
                Examples:
“Save water. Drink beer.”
“We want to eradicate poverty. Therefore, we must use contraceptives.”

8.       Two Wrongs Make a Right
This fallacy consists in defending a wrong action because someone previously has acted wrongly.
Examples:
“It is alright to steal her computer. Besides, it was stolen by her father from someone else.”
“Kung buhay ang inutang, buhay rin ang kabayaran.”

9.       Scapegoating
This fallacy consists in blaming other people for a problem that they know nothing about.
Examples:
“We lost the war against the Spartans because of Socrates.” (Socrates was a philosopher not a soldier)
“Ever since you came into my life, I have been so miserable.”

10.   Rationalization
We are rationalizing when we give someone a reason to justify our action even though we know this reason is not really our own reason for our action, usually because the offered reason will sound better to the audience than our actual reason.
Examples:
“I bought the matzo bread from Kroger’s Supermarket because it is the cheapest brand and I wanted to save money,” says Alex [who knows he bought the bread from Kroger's Supermarket only because his girlfriend works there].

“I wanted my father to buy me an Apple Computer because it is safer to use and aside from that I could process files and documents fast and accurate.” (The real reason is that she could have something to boast to her peers.)

Huwebes, Disyembre 5, 2013

Definition

A definition is a statement that gives the meaning of  a term.
-          Derived from the Latin word definire which means to enclose within limits or to make boundaries or limits
-          The boundary of a field is defined by indicating the limits within which a field is confined and bounded which it is marked off from other fields; similarly, a term is defined by indicating the limits within which it is used and by which it is marked off from other terms.
-          Definition is not a proposition or sentence but a term, generally a complex term.

Parts of a Definition
1.       Definiendum – the word that is defined
2.       Definiens – the phrase that explains the definiendum

Kinds of Definition
I.                    Kinds of Definition Based on Usage

A.      Lexical Definition
A lexical definition (Latin, lexis which means “word”) is the definition of a word according to the meaning customarily assigned to it by the community of users. It simply reports the meaning which a word already has among the users of the language in which the word occurs. A dictionary or lexicon comprises this kind of definition.
E.g.:   Lexicon - dictionary: a reference book that alphabetically lists words and their meanings, e.g. of an ancient language
                            River -     large natural channel of water: a natural stream of water that flows through land and empties into a body of water such as an ocean or lake

B.      Stipulative Definition
A stipulative definition is a kind of definition in which a new word or term is coined in order to signify a meaning or object for which no word in the language has previously been given.
For example, the word selfie has been invented in order to signify a person who loves to take picture of himself or herself.
Suppose that another living creature was found in another planet. Surely, there is no word in our language to signify such creature. We, then, have to stipulate that the creature shall be known by this or that particular name. Doing this means making a stipulative definition.

C.      Precising Definition
The purpose of a precising definition is to reduce the vagueness of a word. There are terms in our language which must have precise definitions because some future actions are based on our knowledge of them.
For example, the arguments for or against contraception requires a clear, precise, and unambiguous definition of life of human organism because such definition implies the moral bearing of contraception.
Other examples which need precising definitions are legal terms like “theft”, “murder”, “private property”, “rights”, and “sovereignty” since the definition sets the condition of understanding laws and legislative praxis.

D.      Theoretical Definition
Theoretical definitions attempt to define an object according to its true nature, and not necessarily according to the way the word is used by a community of users.
Take, for instance, the definition of table salt as sodium chloride. Unless the persons involved have some acquaintance with elementary chemistry, this would be a bad definition, for it would define the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar. For those acquainted with the principles of chemistry, however, this definition is the best one, for it reveals the real nature of salt. Other familiar theoretical definitions are “force equals mass times acceleration,” or “light is electromagnetic energy (of a certain range of wavelengths).” For scientific purposes, theoretical definitions are necessary and cannot be replaced by other types of definitions. A theoretical definition answers the question, “What really is x?” where “x” is the object whose name is to be defined.
Philosophers, too, are interested in theoretical definitions. The desire to know what is really the nature of “human person”, “knowledge”, “existence”, “being”, “beauty” etc., tells us why philosophy today have so many branches like Philosophy of the Human Person, Epistemology, Existentialism, Metaphysics, and Aesthetics which endeavour to get correct theoretical definitions of the objects just mentioned.

E.       Persuasive Definition
Some definitions are intended either mainly or at least partly to influence attitudes. Persuasive definition, under which these definitions are categorized, incites either favourable or unfavourable responses to the object so defined. Here are examples of persuasive definitions:
Democracy is a government of the weak, inferior race.
Democracy is a government of the people by the people for the people.
A dictator is one who achieves greatness by violence in the political sphere.
Love is only an illusion on people who do not know the difference between reality and fantasy.
Contraception is the deliberate prevention of unwanted pregnancy so that families may be able to give the best care to their children.
Contraception is the wilful interference of God’s will so that children who would have seen the light of day are deliberately prevented from doing so.
Persuasive is not really concerned with revealing the true nature of the concept defined but of influencing attitude by using phrases that appeal to one’s emotion.

II.                  Kinds of Definition Based on Extension and Intension

A.      Extensional Definition
Also known as Denotative Definition, it is a way of defining a word based on giving examples of the things or objects referred to by a term. For example, defining a computer for someone who never saw a computer before would be utterly lacking. It is important, therefore, to show him or her a computer. Showing a computer to describe a term “computer” is an extensional definition.
                2 Types:
1.       Definition by Example – a definition in which we list or give examples of the objects denoted by the term
2.       Ostensive – an extensional definition which merely points out an object referred by a term.
3.       Quasi-ostensive – an extensional definition which does not only point the object referred to by the term but also gives a description about the object being pointed out.
Extensional or denotative definitions are important especially when a term requires a demonstration in order to be understood. For example, one cannot define “color red” without pointing to something that is of color red.
There are, however, serious limitations of extensional or denotative definitions. One limitation is that a person who uses this kind of definition is that he may not be able to articulate what the thing really is because he knows only what the thing is like. Articulation of meaning is important because it clarifies ambiguity in understanding, and more importantly, it indicates the depth of understanding a person has of a particular term. Another reason is that extensional definitions cannot define terms that have no extension. For instance, how can we extensionally define terms like “length”, “infinite”, “nothingness”, “value”, etc?

B.      Intensional Definition
Also known as connotative definition or definition by comprehension, it is a way of defining a word by giving its meaning. Giving the meaning of the term may be done through giving its etymological origin or its synonym, or stating the essential attributes of the concept signified by the term.
4 Types:
1.       Etymological Definition - Defines a word by giving the meaning of the word or words from which it is derived. E.g. Philosophy is derived from philos, a Greek word which means “loving,” and Sophia, which means “wisdom”.
2.       Definition by Synonym - Defines a word by giving a synonym (either of the same language as the word to be defined or of a different language) that is better known than the word to be defined. E.g. anthropos means man, to confect means to put together
3.       Operational Definition – A type of intensional definition widely used in science. It defines a word or an occurrence by stating the necessary conditions that are required in order for something to be called such a term. It has a form “Something is X, if and only if…”
For instance, X is magnetic, if and only if, whenever any piece of iron, nickel or cobalt is placed closed to it, it attracts the latter toward itself.
Another example: X is harder than Y, if and only if, when a point of X is drawn on the surface of Y, X scratches Y.
4.       Definition by Genus and Difference or Real Definition – is regarded as the best type of definition because it tells us what a thing really is. It is defining a term by giving a larger class to which the concept signified by the term belongs (called as genus) and stating the properties that a concept has that differentiates it from other concepts under the same genus (called as difference).
For example:
Man is a rational animal. (“Animal” is the genus because it is the larger class to which the concept “man” belongs. “Rational” is the difference because it is what differs man from all other animals.)
Girl is a young woman. (Genus = woman; Difference = young)
Triangle is a plane figure bounded by three straight lines. (Genus = plane figure; Difference = bounded by three straight lines)

Limits of Real Definition:
a.        Only common terms can be defined by real definition. Proper names such as names of places, things, or people are identified rather than defined.
b.      Transcendental concepts (“being”, “thing”, “something”, and so on) cannot be defined by a strict definition but can only be described.
c.       Supreme genera (“being”, “substance”) cannot be defined by real definition because they do not have genus.
d.      Immediate data of experience like color, taste, smell, etc. cannot be defined by real definition.


Rules of Definition:
1.       A definition should state the essential attributes of the object being defined.
Essential attributes are attributes which make the object what it is. So, a good definition of “X” must be able to answer the question “What really is X?”
The definition of man as a rational animal satisfies this criterion, for it tells us what man really is. However, defining man as an animal who is capable of speech violates this rule because being able to speak is not what makes man as “man”.

2.       A definition should be neither too broad nor too narrow.
When a definition is too broad, it might include objects which are not proper extensions of the term, and when it is too narrow, it might exclude objects which are really extensions of the term.
For instance, if we define man as a bipedal mammal then we have to include, based on that definition, other mammals which are also bipedal like apes. Or, if we define man as a rational animal with two legs, two hands, and one head, then our definition is too narrow since it would exclude people who do not have complete legs or hands.

3.       A definition must not be circular.
This means that the definiendum must not appear in the definiens. A definition violates this rule when the term that is supposed to be defined is used to define itself.
Examples of definition that violates this rule:
                “Sympathy” is the feeling of a person who feels sympathetic.
                “Fallacy” is an argument that is fallacious.
A “circle” is a plane figure that has a circular shape.

4.       A definition should not be expressed in figurative, obscure and ambiguous language.
Good definitions do not use metaphor or figurative languages. The purpose of definition is to give us clear idea of what a thing is, and using figurative language will not allow us to achieve that. No matter how appealing such a definition, still it gives no clear idea of what it tries to define. It also defeats the purpose of definition if we define words using other words that are more unfamiliar and obscure.
Examples of definition that violates this rule:
                An elephant is an animal with a long prosboscis.
                A lover is someone who gives you sunshine.
                God is the alpha and the omega.

5.       A definition should as much as possible be affirmative, rather than negative.
The purpose of definition is primarily to tell us what a thing is, not what a thing is not.
Examples of definition that violate this rule:
                A plant is a living thing that is not an animal.
                A girl is a person who is not a boy.
                Life means the opposite of death.
But there are terms which are essentially negative, and a defining such terms requires negative definition. Hence, such negative definitions do not violate this rule. Here are the examples:
                A bald person is someone who has no hair in the head.
                A mute person is someone who cannot speak.

                Nothingness is the absence of existence.