Jump to content

Equivocation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
got rid of un-ref'd examples
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misleading use of a term with multiple meanings}}
{{Short description|Misleading use of a term with multiple meanings}}
{{otheruses}}
{{Otheruses}}

In [[logic]], '''equivocation''' ("calling two different things by the same name") is an [[informal fallacy]] resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple [[word sense|senses]] within an argument.<ref name="Damer2008">{{cite book|author=Damer, T. Edward|title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qZabUx0FmkC|date=21 February 2008|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-0-495-09506-4|pages=121–123}}</ref><ref>{{citation |title = Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought |publisher= HarperCollins |isbn= 978-0-06-131545-9 |date=June 1970 |location= New York |oclc= 185446787 |series= Harper torchbooks |edition= first |first= D. H. |last= Fischer |author-link= David Hackett Fischer |page= 274 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=305}}</ref>
In [[logic]], '''equivocation''' ("calling two different things by the same name") is an [[informal fallacy]] resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple [[word sense|senses]] within an argument.<ref name="Damer2008">{{cite book|author=Damer, T. Edward|title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qZabUx0FmkC|date=21 February 2008|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-0-495-09506-4|pages=121–123}}</ref><ref>{{citation |title = Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought |publisher= HarperCollins |isbn= 978-0-06-131545-9 |date=June 1970 |location= New York |oclc= 185446787 |series= Harper torchbooks |edition= first |first= D. H. |last= Fischer |author-link= David Hackett Fischer |page= 274 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=305}}</ref>


It is a type of [[semantic ambiguity|ambiguity]] that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct [[Meaning (linguistics)|meanings]], not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.<ref name="Damer2008"/>
It is a type of [[semantic ambiguity|ambiguity]] that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct [[Meaning (linguistics)|meanings]], not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.<ref name="Damer2008"/>
Line 18: Line 19:
==Motte-and-bailey fallacy==
==Motte-and-bailey fallacy==
{{Main|Motte-and-bailey fallacy}}
{{Main|Motte-and-bailey fallacy}}
[[File:Launceston_Castle_-_geograph.org.uk_-_22242.jpg|thumb|The motte (raised area) and bailey (walled courtyard) defenses at [[Launceston Castle]]]]

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.
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==
==See also==
⚫
{{wiktionary|equivocation}}
{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}
{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}
⚫
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}

⚫
* [[Antanaclasis]]: A related purposeful rhetorical device
⚫
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
⚫
* [[Circumlocution]]: Phrasing to explain something without saying it
⚫
* [[Antanaclasis]]: a related purposeful rhetorical device
* [[Organizational information theory#Equivocality|Equivocality: Organizational information theory]]
⚫
* [[Circumlocution]]: phrasing to explain something without saying it
* [[Etymological fallacy]]: a kind of linguistic misconception
* [[Etymological fallacy]]: A kind of linguistic misconception
* [[Evasion (ethics)]]: tell the truth while deceiving
* [[Evasion (ethics)]]: Tell the truth while deceiving
* [[Fallacy of four terms]]: an ill form of syllogism
* [[False equivalence]]: Fallacy based on flawed reasoning
⚫
* [[If-by-whiskey]]: An example
* [[False equivalence]]: fallacy based on flawed reasoning
* [[Map-territory relation]]: Concept that words used to describe an underlying reality are arbitrary abstractions not to be confused with the reality itself
⚫
* [[If-by-whiskey]]: an example
* [[Mental reservation]]: a doctrine in moral theology
* [[Mental reservation]]: A doctrine in moral theology
* [[Persuasive definition]]: skewed definition of term
* [[No true Scotsman]]: Changing a definition to exclude a counter-example
* [[Persuasive definition]]: Skewed definition of term
* [[Plausible deniability]]: a blame shifting technique
* [[Plausible deniability]]: A blame-shifting technique
* [[Polysemy]]: the property of word or phrase having certain type of multiple meanings
* [[Polysemy]]: The property of word or phrase having certain type of multiple meanings
* [[Principle of explosion]]: one of the fundamental laws in logic
* [[Principle of explosion]]: One of the fundamental laws in logic
* [[Syntactic ambiguity]], Amphiboly, Amphibology: ambiguity of a sentence by its grammatical structure
* [[Syntactic ambiguity]], Amphiboly, Amphibology: Ambiguity of a sentence by its grammatical structure
* [[When a white horse is not a horse]]: an example
* [[When a white horse is not a horse]]: An example
{{div col end}}
{{Div col end}}


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
⚫
* {{Wiktionary inline|equivocation}}


{{Fallacies}}
{{Fallacies}}

Latest revision as of 07:22, 21 November 2024

For other uses, see Equivocation (disambiguation).

In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]

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]
Main article: Fallacy of four terms

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]
Main article: Motte-and-bailey fallacy
The motte (raised area) and bailey (walled courtyard) defenses at Launceston Castle

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]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Equivocation&oldid=1258724976"