Equivocation
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 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
