3 ms·

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/27-appeal-to-definition http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallaci... Even ign

by gohrt 12y ago

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/27-appeal-to-definition http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallaci... Even ignoring the fact that DSM has major changes in every revision... That's totally unhelpful. Use words to communicate, not confuse. If I say "two plus two is five", and then explain it by counting "one, two, three, five", it's clear that I am using a different word, but I have the same idea as the common "two plus two is four". When you seek to compate with a definition to empirical data, if the definition doesn't match, that means that the words we are using need to be clarified, not that the empirical data is wrong. (The data might be wrong, but "appeal to dictionary" is not a persuasive argument.

6581 12y ago
The problem is that the only broadly accepted definitions of autism we have are in the DSM-5 and ICD-10. In a broader sense, this shows a fundamental flaw of psychology. I'm not saying I agree with the diagnostic criteria, but it's all we have.