Equivocation
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting in the failure to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting in the failure to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.[1][2][3]
It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
Fallacy of four terms
[edit]Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum). Below is an example:
- Since only man [human] is rational.
- And no woman is a man [male].
- Therefore, no woman is rational.[1]
The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male.
Motte-and-bailey fallacy
[edit]
Equivocation can also be used to conflate two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend and one much more controversial. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.
See also
[edit]
- Antanaclasis: A related purposeful rhetorical device
- Circumlocution: Phrasing to explain something without saying it
- Equivocality: Organizational information theory
- Etymological fallacy: A kind of linguistic misconception
- Evasion (ethics): Tell the truth while deceiving
- False equivalence: Fallacy based on flawed reasoning
- If-by-whiskey: An example
- Map-territory relation: Concept that words used to describe an underlying reality are arbitrary abstractions not to be confused with the reality itself
- Mental reservation: A doctrine in moral theology
- No true Scotsman: Changing a definition to exclude a counter-example
- Persuasive definition: Skewed definition of term
- Plausible deniability: A blame-shifting technique
- Polysemy: The property of word or phrase having certain type of multiple meanings
- Principle of explosion: One of the fundamental laws in logic
- Syntactic ambiguity, Amphiboly, Amphibology: Ambiguity of a sentence by its grammatical structure
- When a white horse is not a horse: An example
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Damer, T. Edward (21 February 2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Cengage Learning. pp. 121–123. ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4.
- ^ Fischer, D. H. (June 1970), Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought, Harper torchbooks (first ed.), New York: HarperCollins, p. 274, ISBN 978-0-06-131545-9, OCLC 185446787
- ^ Bennett, Bo (April 2015), Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies, Harper torchbooks (first ed.), New York: Ebookit, p. 274, ISBN 1456624539, OCLC 185446787
External links
[edit]
The dictionary definition of equivocation at Wiktionary
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
