Timeline for Is the use of inconsistent definitions a logical fallacy?

5 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Dec 31, 2015 at 6:27	comment	added	Stella Biderman		It depends on how the definition is being used. Consider this: Let $1=2$. Then $1=1^2=2^2=4$. Thus we get $0=1-1=4-1=3$. Thus $3=0$. The conclusion here is false, but it's false because we started off with something that is wrong. This isn't really an inconsistent definition, but an inconsistent definition can be used in exactly the same kind of way, creating a deduction that is valid but not sound. It's also possible that the argument is logically invalid... it just depends on the argument.
S Dec 31, 2015 at 6:21	history	suggested	LightCC	CC BY-SA 3.0	Fixed typo and added WIkipedia link for Principle of Explosion.
Dec 31, 2015 at 4:50	review	Suggested edits
S Dec 31, 2015 at 6:21
Dec 31, 2015 at 0:48	comment	added	LightCC		Thank you for the Principle of Explosion, I'm with you there. On the point of logical reasoning, though, can one really proceed with a logically sound argument if one of the core definitions you are using is incoherent? Isn't any step which has to refer back to that definition suspect? If the definition is by default unexplainable, how can you show that a step later in the logic that attempts to use any of its characteristics is valid?
Dec 30, 2015 at 23:27	history	answered	Stella Biderman	CC BY-SA 3.0