The purpose of this paper is to precisify and compare three relationships between definition and argumentation: argumentation about definition, argumentation from definition and argumentation by definition. Some modification of the standard understanding of these relationships is suggested. Additionally, it is argued that although real definitions are fallible and subject to revision and change, this does not imply that they have to be persuasive, manipulative definitions.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.