 |
| Bizarro! |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
'We are guilty of extensional pruning if we use words in their commonly accepted meaning, but retreat when challenged into a strictly literal definition. The fallacy becomes possible because there are two ways of understanding what words mean.' (104).
Basically, words can be taken strictly literally or somewhat figuratively. I have used the academic definitions of 'plain literal' and 'figurative literal' in my work. This was taken from Theology I-II at Trinity Western University and the late Dr. Earl Radmacher.
A friend states to you:
'If you do that, I will kill you.' (If that is literal, you need to cancel this friendship.)
'If you do that, I will kill you.' (If figurative, a friend means they will be at least somewhat annoyed with you.) (My examples).
'We can describe by the properties of what we refer to, or we can give examples. The first is called the 'intension' and the second is the 'extension' of the word.' (104).
Pirie explains this fallacy as 'extensional pruning'. A person under critique retreats to literal definition, from a less literal one, if confronted. (105).
'All we said is that we'd install a switchboard. We didn't say that it would work.'
'(Nor did they.)' (105).
One goes from the intended to extended meaning.
The dealership had promised us a new vehicle. They then later stated that a vehicle that would run was never promised.
My example retreats to an extension of meaning, as an automobile dealerships fails to defend the unethical dealings of providing a promised vehicle, that does not run.
The foreign, cheaper, discount, surgeon promised my friend a new heart with a transplant. But my friend died when he was given a baboon's heart.
Some animal rights advocates may be pleased, but the foreign, cheaper, discount, surgeon failed to deliver the expected human heart and then unethically retreated to the use of a baboon heart, attempting a defence with the use of 'extensional pruning.' (My examples).
