Dic·tion·ar·y

Introduction

Dictionaries are blunt and, subsequently, often misused tools. The original philological mission, to enrich and inform the usage of language, has fallen prey to a trend of definitiveness. Instead, it appears most dictionary usage is confined to users who use authoritative references to covertly bias the topic at hand. How can you predispose an issue to your favour by merely using a dicitonary? A dictionary is not merely an objective wordlist that has been coallated for reference. Just as the OED is not inexhuastible in scope, neither can it be neutral as well. Any argument, which supports a conclusion by offering an authorities' definition of a term, commits one to an underlying consent to the cited linguistic authority. Effectively, such an argument is reduced to a contest of popular semantics. Using the more prestigious OED for your trump-card is no less misleading than referring to the Devil's Dicitonary, the Communist Dictionary or the Feminist Dictionary. h3. The Sophist's Best Friend An authoritative reference to a dictionary promotes a discourse whereby simple equivocation plunders all attempts at meaningful reference. This is because the nature of the reference itself is to merely further attempts for linguistic power-plays. In otherwords, the only reason to resort to a dictionary definition in making your argument is to begin a game of linguistic sleight-of hand rather than the naive notion that you wish to eliminate word-play. You would not be serving the issue at argument but rather a sophist's ambition to simply win. Hence, Sophistry is what this and every other dictionary is all about.