Editing Fallacies of definition (section)

{{Short description|Ways in which a term may be poorly defined}}
'''Fallacies of definition''' are the various ways in which [[definition]]s can fail to explain terms. The phrase is used to suggest an [[analogy]] with an [[informal fallacy]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kale|first=Rekhaa|date=2015-10-25|title=BLS LOGIC 1: CHAPTER 8. DEFINITION|url=http://blslogic1.blogspot.com/2015/10/chapter-8-definition.html|access-date=2020-07-21|website=BLS LOGIC 1}}</ref> Definitions may fail to have merit, because they are overly broad,<ref name=":0">Gibbon, Guy (2013). ''Critically Reading the Theory and Methods of Archaeology: An Introductory Guide''<!--unpaginated-->. Rowman & Littlefield. {{ISBN|9780759123427}}.</ref><ref name="Potter">Potter, Karl H. (1991). ''Presuppositions of India's Philosophies'', p.87. Motilal Banarsidass. {{ISBN|9788120807792}}. "Under-extension", "over-extension", and "mutual exclusion".</ref><ref name=":1">Chakraborti, Chhanda (2007). ''Logic: Informal, Symbolic and Inductive'', p.54-5. PHI Learning. {{ISBN|9788120332485}}. "Too wide", "too narrow", "incomprehensible", and "conflicting".</ref> overly narrow,<ref name="Potter" /><ref name=":1" /> or incomprehensible;<ref name=":1" /> or they use obscure or ambiguous language,<ref name=":0" /> contain mutually exclusive parts,<ref name="Potter" /> or (perhaps most commonly<ref name="H&D" />) are circular.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Schipper, Edith Watson and Schuh, Edward  (1960). ''A First Course in Modern Logic'', p.24. Routledge. "Incongruous", "circular", "negative", and "obscure or figurative".</ref>