Equivocation: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Updated formatting and presentation |
Taumata994 (talk | contribs) Importing Wikidata short description: "Misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense" (Shortdesc helper) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense}} |
|||
{{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=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> |
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=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> |
||
Revision as of 03:22, 10 September 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]
Below are some examples of equivocation in syllogisms (a logical chain of reasoning):
- 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.
- 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 [male donkey] have long ears.
- Carl is a jackass [annoying person].
- 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
- Antanaclasis: a related purposeful rhetorical device
- Circumlocution: phrasing to explain something without saying it
- Etymological fallacy: a kind of linguistic misconception
- 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
- Mental reservation: a doctrine in moral theology
- 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
- ^ 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
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
