Labelling

Last updated

Labelling or using a label is describing someone or something in a word or short phrase. [1] For example, the label "criminal" may be used to describe someone who has broken a law. Labelling theory is a theory in sociology which ascribes labelling of people to control and identification of deviant behaviour. It has been argued that labelling is necessary for communication. [2] However, the use of the term is often intended to highlight the fact that the label is a description applied from the outside, rather than something intrinsic to the labelled thing. This can be done for several reasons:

Contents

This last usage can be seen as an accusation that such a short description is overly-reductive.

Giving something a label can be seen as positive, but the term label is not usually used in this case. For example, giving a name to a common identity is seen as essential in identity politics.

Labelling is often equivalent to pigeonholing or the use of stereotypes and can suffer from the same problems as these activities.

The labelling of people can be related to a reference group. For example, the labels black and white are related to black people and white people; the labels young and old are related to young people and old people.

The labelling of works of art can be related to genre. For example, a piece of music may be described as progressive rock or indie or ragga jungle drum and bass. However, there are other labels that can be applied to a work, such as derivative, low or high. The use of the word labelling is less common in the context of works of art than people. However, it also often represents the rejection of a label. For example, an artist may feel that the labeller is attempting to restrict the scope of the artist's work to that which is covered by the label.

On the internet

Labelling on the web represents the chunks of information in information environments, where labelling is perhaps the most obvious way to show a site's organization schemes across multiple systems and contexts. [3]

Labelling systems are one of the major components in information architecture, and one of the first steps of an information architecture project is to identify, organize and label relevant chunks of information. [3] When creating labels, the goal is to communicate efficiently, and without taking up too much space. Labels should be written in a language that's familiar to the users, and in a way that they will detect new and recognize similar concepts. [3]

In an information environment, labels are either textual or iconic. [3]

Textual labels

Contextual links are hyperlinks to information on other pages or another location on the same page, and need to draw meaning from their surrounding text. [3]

Labels are often used as headings to present subsequent information and create a hierarchy within contents. A hierarchical relationship between headings is established visually through consistent use of numbering, font size, color and styles, white spaces, indentation, or a combination of these items.

When used in a navigation system there is no standard, but common categories might be:

Index terms are often referred to as keywords, tags, descriptive metadata, taxonomies, controlled vocabularies, and thesauri. Such labelling systems can describe any type of content such as sites, subsites, pages, or content chunks. [3]

Iconic labels

Browser navigation icons for "back", "forward", "reload" and "home page" Browser navigation icons.jpg
Browser navigation icons for "back", "forward", "reload" and "home page"

Icons can serve as a substitute for text to represent information. Iconic labels are used as navigation systems, especially in mobile apps, where screen space is constrained. [3]

In argumentation

In context of argumentation and debate, labelling a debater or position is often (whether consciously or unconsciously) used as a "red herring" to divert or dismiss the argument, instead of valid argumentation. Often in the form of ad hominem association fallacy aiming at accrediting or discrediting the argument or the debater by associating them with an emotionally charged label. Typically negatively; labelling it as ridiculous or despicable, though it can also go the other way round; attempting to gain sympathy for example by promoting the debater or position as authoritative, or by appealing to pity.

Using labelling in argumentation this way constitute an informal fallacy. For example:

"Jones believes that it can be done with the right technology."
"Jones is a deluded fool." (ie. therefore it can never be done.)
"The witness claim to have seen something that indicates foul play."
"It is paranoid to assume foul play." (ie. therefore whatever the witness might have seen is irrelevant.)
"Markings indicate that it was done with a crowbar. And secondly, Smith is a suspect."
"It is ridiculous to suspect Smith." (ie. therefore it is also ridiculous to assume it was done with a crowbar.)
"It has been suggested that something it said in the book could be wrong."
"It is a very noble book." (ie. Therefore the suggestion is wrong.)

Labelling in science

Mario Bunge (1967) rejected labelling (labeling) as 'name calling' and 'pseudo-explanation'. [4] Furthermore he observed that it 'is conspicuous in ideological debate, in pseudoscience, and even in the early stages of science (protoscience).' [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong -without ever addressing the point of the debate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False dilemma</span> Informal fallacy involving falsely limited alternatives

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Argument from ignorance</span> Informal fallacy

Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.

In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fallacy</span> Argument that uses faulty reasoning

A fallacy, is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.

Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences. An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Media manipulation</span> Techniques in which partisans create an image that favours their interests

Media manipulation refers to orchestrated campaigns in which actors exploit the distinctive features of broadcasting mass communications or digital media platforms to mislead, misinform, or create a narrative that advance their interests and agendas.

Appeal to ridicule is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

The association fallacy is a formal logical fallacy that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing, if both things belong to the same group. For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that "bears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cherry picking</span> Fallacy of incomplete evidence

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.

Critical rationalism is an epistemological philosophy advanced by Karl Popper on the basis that, if a statement cannot be logically deduced, it might nevertheless be possible to logically falsify it. Following Hume, Popper rejected any inductive logic that is ampliative, i.e., any logic that can provide more knowledge than deductive logic. This led Popper to his falsifiability criterion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logical reasoning</span> Process of drawing correct inferences

Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case. Together, they form an argument. Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is logic.

Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest known use of the term in the English language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informal fallacy</span> Form of incorrect argument in natural language

Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

In logic and mathematics, proof by example is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases—rather than a full-fledged proof.

An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.

The politician's syllogism, also known as the politician's logic or the politician's fallacy, is a logical fallacy of the form:

  1. We must do something.
  2. This is something.
  3. Therefore, we must do this.

Philosophy of logic is the area of philosophy that studies the scope and nature of logic. It investigates the philosophical problems raised by logic, such as the presuppositions often implicitly at work in theories of logic and in their application. This involves questions about how logic is to be defined and how different logical systems are connected to each other. It includes the study of the nature of the fundamental concepts used by logic and the relation of logic to other disciplines. According to a common characterization, philosophical logic is the part of the philosophy of logic that studies the application of logical methods to philosophical problems, often in the form of extended logical systems like modal logic. But other theorists draw the distinction between the philosophy of logic and philosophical logic differently or not at all. Metalogic is closely related to the philosophy of logic as the discipline investigating the properties of formal logical systems, like consistency and completeness.

References

  1. "Definition of label | Dictionary.com". www.dictionary.com.
  2. The American Oxonian, Volume 86, pp184. Association of American Rhodes Scholars. 1999.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louis Rosenfeld; Peter Morville; Jorge Arango (2015). Information Architecture for the web and beyond. O'Reilly Media, Inc. ISBN   978-1-4919-1168-6.
  4. Bunge, Mario (1967). Scientific research Volume II The search for truth. New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 9.
  5. Bunge, Mario (1967). Scientific research Volume II The search for truth. New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 10.