Paradigm Case Argument

The paradigm case argument is a strategy in analytic philosophy, formally named around 1957, used to answer skeptical or revisionary claims that some ordinary concept, such as free will or knowledge, is confused, empty or inapplicable to anything real. It proceeds by pointing to a paradigm case, a clear and uncontroversial instance that speakers of the language would agree the term applies to, and arguing that the very fact the term is applied consistently and confidently to such cases shows it has a genuine, working meaning in practice, regardless of any philosophical difficulty in stating necessary and sufficient conditions for it. The argument was closely associated with ordinary language philosophy at the height of its influence, though its popularity has since declined considerably; later commentators such as Ian Hacking have noted that a topic once given extensive treatment in mid-century philosophical reference works had, by the time of works such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, largely fallen out of active discussion.