I don't see it as disputing definitions at all. Paul Bloom is clear what he means by "empathy" and doesn't carelessly apply his argument when the word "empathy

I don't see it as disputing definitions at all. Paul Bloom is clear what he means by "empathy" and doesn't carelessly apply his argument when the word "empathy" means something else. In fact at the same time he argues that empathy by his meaning isn't good practice for doctors he says the "empathy training" for doctors that he is aware of is a good thing, precisely because the word is used in a different way. He defines certain terms in certain ways for the sake of making his argument while acknowledging that the same words are commonly used in ways that his argument doesn't apply to.