Equivocation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:32, 28 August 2020

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 within an argument.^[1]^[2]

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]

Some examples of equivocation in syllogisms (a logical chain of reasoning) are below:

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 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.

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

[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

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 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"/>
-Below is an example of equivocation in a [[syllogism]] (a logical chain of reasoning).
+Some examples of equivocation in [[syllogism]]s (a logical chain of reasoning) are below:
-*Since only man [human] is rational,
+* Since only man [human] is rational,
-:and no woman is a man [male],
+: and no woman is a man [male],
-:therefore, no woman is rational.<ref name="Damer2008"/>
+: 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.
+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.
 ==See also==