Equivocation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:22, 21 November 2024

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

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

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.

References

^ ^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

External links

The dictionary definition of equivocation at Wiktionary

[Damer2008-1] 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

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Misleading use of a term with multiple meanings}}
-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]] throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.<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=0-495-09506-0|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 |authorlink= David Hackett Fischer |page= 274 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=305}}</ref> [[Abbott and Costello]]'s "[[Who's on first?]]" routine is a well known example of equivocation.<ref name=fallacyfiles>{{cite web|last1=Curtis|first1=Gary|title=Logical Fallacy: Equivocation|url=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html|website=The Fallacy Files|accessdate=17 July 2017|date=n.d.}}</ref><ref>{{YouTube | id=kTcRRaXV-fg | title=Abbott & Costello Who's On First }}</ref>
+{{Otheruses}}
+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 distinct 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"/>
-Some examples of equivocation in [[syllogism]]s (a logical chain of reasoning) are below:
+==Fallacy of four terms==
-*Since only man [human] is rational,
+{{Main|Fallacy of four terms}}
-:and no woman is a man [male],
-:Therefore, no woman is rational.<ref name="Damer2008"/>
+Equivocation in a [[syllogism]] (a chain of reasoning) produces a [[fallacy of four terms]] ({{lang|la|quaternio terminorum}}). Below is an example:
-*A feather is light.
-:What is light cannot be dark.
-:Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
+: Since only man [human] is rational.
-In the above example, distinct meanings of the word "light" are implied in contexts of the first and second statements.
+: And no woman is a man [male].
+: Therefore, no woman is rational.<ref name="Damer2008" />
+The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male.
-*All jackasses have long ears.
-:Carl is a jackass.
-:Therefore, Carl has long ears.
+==Motte-and-bailey fallacy==
-Here, the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a simple-minded or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.
+{{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.
 ==See also==
-{{Portal|Thinking}}
+{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}
+{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}
-* [[Etymological fallacy]]
+* [[Antanaclasis]]: A related purposeful rhetorical device
-* [[Persuasive definition]]
+* [[Circumlocution]]: Phrasing to explain something without saying it
-* [[Principle of explosion]]
+* [[Organizational information theory#Equivocality|Equivocality: Organizational information theory]]
-* [[Evasion (ethics)]]
+* [[Etymological fallacy]]: A kind of linguistic misconception
-* [[Fallacy of four terms]]
+* [[Evasion (ethics)]]: Tell the truth while deceiving
-* [[False equivalence]]
+* [[False equivalence]]: Fallacy based on flawed reasoning
-* [[If-by-whiskey]]
+* [[If-by-whiskey]]: An example
-* [[Mental reservation]]
+* [[Map-territory relation]]: Concept that words used to describe an underlying reality are arbitrary abstractions not to be confused with the reality itself
-* [[Plausible deniability]]
+* [[Mental reservation]]: A doctrine in moral theology
-* [[When a white horse is not a horse]]
+* [[No true Scotsman]]: Changing a definition to exclude a counter-example
-* [[Antanaclasis]], a similar usage for stylistic or rhetorical purposes
+* [[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
+{{Div col end}}
 ==References==
-{{reflist}}
+{{Reflist}}
+== External links ==
-{{Informal Fallacy}}
+* {{Wiktionary inline|equivocation}}
+{{Fallacies}}
 [[Category:Verbal fallacies]]