Obscurity and Clear Thinking 1

Obscurity

Obscurity not just a matter of being difficult to understand. For instance, the fact that Einstein's essay "Foundation of General Relativity" is difficult to understand does not mean it is genuinely obscure language. It is not obscure to a trained physicist.[1]

So my point here is it not always easy to distinguish between genuinely obscure material and that which is only apparently obscure. But if the critical thinker is going to accuse some material as being problematically obscure, the charge needs to be supported with evidence. The critical thinker must identify the source of the obscurity.

Obscurity can issue from various causes, four are paramount:

1. excessive vagueness

2. ambiguity

3. excessive generality

4. undefined terms

Excessive Vagueness

Vagueness at the Boarder

Vagueness results when the scope of a concept is not clear, that is, when there may in fact exist some clear-cut cases, but also borderline cases.

1. "bald”

2. "blond"

3. "elderly"

We have many such vague words and concepts, but many are nevertheless perfectly serviceable in certain contexts. It is impossible to get rid of it entirely. But there is no need to. Sometime vagueness is not really problematic in certain contexts. For instance, imagine I invited you to a picnic on the beach in South Point Park at twilight. Well, “twilight” is a vague term. There is no clearly delineated time when twilight begins or ends. But in this context, the use of this vague term is unproblematic. You would still know when to get there. Show up at noon and you are way too early. Show up as 9:00 PM and you missed it.

But were I to propose that we launch the Space Shuttle at twilight, well, in this context, twilight is too vague to be of service. We need to be far more precise when dealing with a shuttle launch.

In general, there IS a problem with vagueness when the vagueness prevents us from knowing whether or not we should accept the claim or not.

Real (perhaps more troublesome) Cases:

Consider:

1. Torture (e.g. is waterboarding torture?)

2. Reckless Driving

3. Sexual Harassment

4. Obscenity

5. “The Wealthy”

Ex: The rich should be taxed at a rate of 55%.

Problem: What do you mean by “rich?”

Ambiguity

Ambiguity is importantly different than vagueness. In cases of vagueness, the word, term or phrase has a vague meaning, but a single one. But ambiguity is when the word, term or phrase has multiple meanings. The multiple meanings might each in themselves be precise. The problem of ambiguity arises when we cannot determine which of the multiple, precise meanings, the speaker or writer intends.

A word, phrase, or sentence is said to be ambiguous when it has more than one meaning.

Consider:

"Jessica rents her house.”

Ok, but what does this sentence mean?

Is it the case that Jessica owns a house which she rents out to others?

Or.

Is it the case that Jessica lives in a house that the does not own, but for which she pays rent?

"The kids made nutritious snacks." (sort of funny)

“I know a little German.”

Four Kinds of Ambiguity:

1. Semantic Ambiguity: The word has multiple meaning and the context does not establish which is intended

EX: Aunt Delia never used glasses.

But do I mean eye glasses or drinking glasses?

2. Syntactic Ambiguity: When a claim is open to two or more interpretations because of its structure-that is, its syntax.

EX: There's somebody in the bed next to me.

“Next to me” is a modifying clause, but the syntax does not specify what it modifies. Does "next to me" apply to a person or to a bed?

One might rewrite this with less ambiguous syntax as either "There's somebody next to me in this bed." or as "There's somebody in the bed that is next to mine."

EX: “Biology majors need to complete Calc 1 & either Calc 2 or Stats 1 & Stats 2.

But, is it the case that they must they take (both Cal 1 & 2 and need not take Stats at all) or ( both Stats 1 & 2 and need not take Calc at all)

is it the case that they must they take (Calc 1, regardless) & then either [(Calc 2 and not take Stats as all) or (both Stats 1 & 2 and need not take Calc 2)]

3. Grouping Ambiguity: It is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or to members of the group individually.

EX: Secretaries make more money than physicians do.

Do individual secretaries make more money on average than individual physicians? Or is it the case that the collective of secretaries make more money than the collective of physicians?

EX: Lawn mowers create more air pollution than dirt bikes do.

Likewise here. Is it the case that an individual lawnmower creates more air pollution than an individual dirt bike? Or is it the case that as a group lawnmowers create more air pollution that dirt bikes as a group?

4. Ambiguous pronoun references: When it is not clear to what or whom a pronoun is supposed to refer.

"The boys chased the girls and they giggled a lot." does not make clear who did the giggling. "They" could be referring to either the boys or the girls or both.

A similar example: "After their father removed the trash from the pool, the kids played in it."

"Paul agreed that, once Gary removed the motor from the car, he could have it."

Vagueness via Generality: lack of sufficient specificity.

Note if I told you I had a pet and left unspecified what that pet is, then you have some knowledge but it's vague. Very general. The class of pets is a very large class including things like dogs, cats, birds, snakes, etc. I could be less vague by telling you I have a dog.

If I tell you have a dog, I nevertheless leave unspecified what sort of dog. The class of dogs has fewer members than the class of pets, but it is nevertheless a very large class. I could replace “dog” with a term that refers to a class with even fewer than all members and further reduce the generality vagueness, and tell you have an Irish Setter. Whether this vagueness is troublesome depends on what this disclosure is supposed to reveal to you. If I am making idle conversation, then this is not problematic. On the other hand, if I'm asking you to pet sit this weekend, you will want to know more than that I have a pet.

Consider being told that "Clarence was arrested" or instead being told that "Clarence was arrested for trespassing." If you learn that Clarence was arrested, it may well lower your estimate of him and may prevent you from hiring him to do work around your house, for example. But if some more detail were supplied-for instance, that he had been arrested for trespassing during a protest against a company that was polluting the local river-it might well make a difference in your opinion of him.

The difference between a very general description and one with more specificity can be crucial to nearly any decision.

Definitions

Defining Terms

Used of Definitions

Definitions can serve several purposes, but let’s narrow our consideration here to these three:

1. Lexical definitions are definitions

This are the definitions found in dictionaries and their online equivalent. Sometimes missed is that fact that the purpose of lexical definitions is to catalog how words are most commonly used.

Many think lexical definitions are meant to prescribe how a word ought to be or must be used. This is not the case. The very reason dictionaries need constantly to be revised is because language use changes and dictionaries are meant follow language use rather than regulate language use. There was a time, for instance, then the word “gentleman” in English was only used to refer to a male property owner. That’s what the word meant and how it was defined in the dictionaries of the day. But of course, that is not how the word is used nor defined contemporarily.

2. Precising or stipulative definitions

Here, for a given context of relative to accomplishing a certain task we may take a general term and restrict its scope. For instance, I have a colleague who stipulates for her course that she uses the work “Ethics” to refer to philosophical theories of right human conduct, and she uses the term “Morality” to refer to a past, present or further human cultural artifacts, often grounded in religious commitments. But this is just a stipulative definition.

Now in ordinary speech, these words are mostly synonymous and interchangeable. I do NOT make this stipulative definition in my courses for this reason.

Likewise, in a course in formal logic, “valid” is an adjective that is only applied to arguments with certain features and not to propositions, ideas, statements or IDs, etc.. Specifically, “valid” means the argument is such that it could not be the case that the premises are true and the conclusion is false. This is a stipulation that does not hold in other contexts. Were we simply chatting over coffee I might say, “You make a valid point.” and that would be perfectly intelligible in that context.

In legal contexts we might have a law which forbids “motorized vehicles” from being used in a public park. But to be enforced, we must stipulate what constitutes a “motorized vehicle” for the purposes of this law. We might, for instance, stipulate that motorized wheelchairs are not considered vehicles while motorized bicycles and scooters are.

Occasionally a new term will be created, creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are no existing standards against which to compare it, and the definition is always correct (though it might fail to win acceptance if it turns out to be inapt or useless).

Theoretical definitions are special cases of stipulative or precising definition, distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context of a broader intellectual framework. Since the adoption of any theoretical definition commits us to the acceptance of the larger theory of which it is an integral part, we are rightly cautious in agreeing to it. Newton's definition of the terms "mass" and "inertia" carried with them a commitment to (at least part of) his theories about the conditions in which physical objects move. So too with the definitions of “neurosis” or “delusion” within psychoanalysis.

3. Persuasive or rhetorical definitions

These are used to persuade or slant someone's attitude or point of view toward whatever the "defined" term refers to. This kind of definition can be troublesome, because it often distorts the real meaning of a term in order to cause the listener or reader to favor or disfavor a person, policy, object, or event.

EX: A Democrat is someone who loves to spend other people’s money.

This kind of definition can be troublesome, because it often distorts the real meaning of a term in order to cause the listener or reader to favor or disfavor a person, policy, object, or event. These attempt to attach emotive meaning to the use of a term and that can serve to confuse the meaning of the term.

Means of Definitions

One can define a term in several different ways.

1. Definition by example (also called ostensive definition):

E.g. showing you a sample of cloth and telling you this is satin.

2. Definition by synonym: Giving another word or phrase that means the same as the term being

E.g. A “colleague” is a “coworker.”

3. Analytical definition: Specifying the features a thing must possess in order for the term being defined to apply to it.

E.g. A “vixen” is a “female fox.”

E.g. A triangle is a closed plane figure having exactly three sides.

Almost all dictionary definitions, often said to be lexical definitions, are of the analytical variety.

General Remarks on Definitions

1. The types and uses can be combined. For instance, ‘"minor" means “under eighteen years of age.” is a precising/stipulative definition that is achieved by analysis.

2. Good definitions will not prejudice the case against one side of a debate or the other. One should be on guard against those that do and instead seek to use neutral definitions that all parties can agree to.

3. Good definitions should be clear. They should be expressed in language that is as clear and simple as the subject will allow. If we define a word with language that is more obscure than the original word, we accomplish nothing. This includes avoiding emotionally charged language.

4. Sometimes you must get along with incomplete definitions. Often, we are confronted with issues (and terms) for which there can be a best a partial definition or only a stipulative definition. Consider debates about “Art.” (friendship, loyalty, fair play, freedom, rights, or sandwich)

The philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951), suggested that there are many terms where we cannot provide necessary and sufficient conditions and yet we perfectly well know what the term means. “Game” was such a term for Wittgenstein. According to him, among the many things that count as games there only exists a “family resemblance.”.

Morris Weitz (1916 – 1981), in his article "The Role of Theory in Esthetics,“ suggest that while “Byzantine Painting” or “Ancient Greek Tragedy” might be concepts we can define, because they are no longer traditions of contemporary art. They are “closed” concepts. “Art,” the word naming the living contemporary process, is an “Open Concept” and thus defies definition.

Not long ago, I got an email from a student about a different course he was taking. He wrote:

“I got this question "wrong" on a recent quiz in one of my Comm classes, and after our back and forth, still got it "wrong" - regardless of my "critical thinking" in explaining that the terms "Anonymity", "Confidentiality" and "Privacy" all refer to the same theme.”

It turns out that there were so precising or stipulative definitions being employed by the professor which did not draw their meaning exclusively from common parlance, but rather a convention adopted by the parties. I believe the context involve conducting research with human subjects.

Anonymity: Participants names are not collected, stored, or even known to the researcher. If I’m the researcher, I don’t know, collect, or save my participant’s names. Data is retained with no identifier.

Confidentiality: Names are collected, but protected; if names could be released then researcher must explain the reasons why the identifiers could potentially be released.

Privacy: This refers to the right and level of control over one’s identity being shared; participants need to know if they have privacy and to what degree.

Arguments and Tainted Definitions

Definitions, or the lack of them, can cause great confusion in argumentation. Consider the following "argument"

Whenever you can, you act so as to satisfy your desires.

Acting to satisfy your desires is acting selfishly.

Therefore, whenever you can, you act selfishly.

We hope you're not persuaded by this. If you look carefully at this argument, you should notice that hidden in it is an odd "definition" of acting selfishly - acting so as to satisfy your desires. Indeed, given this definition, you act selfishly whenever you can. But the ordinary understanding of acting selfishly is putting your own interests above those of others. Given the ordinary definition of the phrase, you do not necessarily always act selfishly.

If an argument leads to a surprising result, the first thing to do is check definitions

[1] Occasionally some philosophers, when accused of writing obscure nonsense, have similarly responded that it is not really obscure to an informed reader. But they have done so often much less convincingly.