Validity of the Appeal to Etymology
Mark Lieberman at the Language Log recently posted his views on the validity of arguments from etymology:
Querkopf von Klubstick returns
While I’ll admit using these for rhetorical effect (i.e. introductory material) in informal settings, I’ve always shied away from them in formal academic prose. The question for me, here, is whether or not they deserve to be included in a critical thinking course.
It certainly seems - and Lieberman’s example of T.D. Jakes on Oprah serves to prove the point - that arguments of this sort abound in those areas of discourse our students are likely to encounter in their daily lives. And hence, it follows that they should be covered.
The question really is whether they form a distinct category of fallacy over and above the standardly covered ‘genetic’ fallacy, or a variation on an equivocation (i.e. equivocating between the contemporary meaning in light of the historical one). It may be precisely because they fall between these two categories that they deserve their own classification. Any thoughts?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I was searching for academic work on CT this afternoon, and stumbled across Paul’s theoretical overview at criticalthinking.org:
Our Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking
Notice the the etymology in paragraph 1 of the discussion! I probably wouldn’t call this an actual ‘appeal to etymology’, as it seems to be used primarily for rhetorical effect - but there is an implied inference in the final sentence:
“Etymologically, then, the word implies the development of ‘discerning judgment based on standards.’”