Equivocation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:40, 6 September 2019

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 senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.^[1]^[2] Abbott and Costello's "Who's on first?" routine is a well known example of equivocation.^[3]^[4]

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.^[1]

Below is an example of equivocation in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning).

Since only man [human] is rational, and no woman is a man [male], no woman is rational.^[1]

The first instance of "man" implies the human species, while the second implies just the males.

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 0-495-09506-0.
^ 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
^ Curtis, Gary (n.d.). "Logical Fallacy: Equivocation". The Fallacy Files. Retrieved 17 July 2017.
^ Abbott & Costello Who's On First on YouTube

[Damer2008-1] Damer, T. Edward (21 February 2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Cengage Learning. pp. 121–123. ISBN 0-495-09506-0.

[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

[fallacyfiles-3] Curtis, Gary (n.d.). "Logical Fallacy: Equivocation". The Fallacy Files. Retrieved 17 July 2017.

[4] Abbott & Costello Who's On First on YouTube

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 It is a type of [[semantic ambiguity|ambiguity]] that stems from a phrase having two 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:
+Below is an example of equivocation in a [[syllogism]] (a logical chain of reasoning).
-Since only man [human] is rational, and no woman is a man [male], no woman is rational.<ref name="Damer2008" />
+:Since only man [human] is rational, and no woman is a man [male], no woman is rational.<ref name="Damer2008" />
 The first instance of "man" implies the human species, while the second implies just the males.
-A feather is light [not heavy]. What is light [bright] cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
-In the above example, distinct meanings of the word "light" are implied in contexts of the first and second statements.
-All jackasses have long ears. Carl is a jackass. Therefore, Carl has long ears.
-Here, the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a simple-minded or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.
-Person 1: That kid plays so much Minecraft he drives his mother mad.
-Person 2: Mad people should be sent to mental hospitals so they cause no damage, so we should send his mom to a mental hospital.
-Person 1 meant by "mad" that the mom was angry, but Person 2 interpreted it as "mentally ill."
-A rich billionaire has a tinsmith living at his left and an iron-smith to his right. Their constant banging leaves him unable to sleep, so he gifts them both a large sum of money to use for  moving. However, once they have moved, the banging continues. The tinsmith moved to the iron-smith's house, and vice versa.
-Here, the billionaire meant by "moving" that the smiths move to a substantial distance away, but the smiths took it to mean that moving ''anywhere'' counted.
 ==See also==