Equivocation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Denisarona
 
imported>Donn Fretz
mNo edit summary
 
Line 2: Line 2:
{{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 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>
In [[logic]], '''equivocation''' ("calling two different things by the same name") is an [[informal fallacy]] resulting in the failure to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.<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><ref>{{citation |title =  Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies  | publisher= Ebookit  |isbn= 1456624539 |date=April 2015 |location= New York |oclc= 185446787 |series= Harper torchbooks |edition= first  |first=Bo |last= Bennett  |author-link= Bo Bennett  |page= 274 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=WFvhN9lSm5gC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref>


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"/>
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"/>

Latest revision as of 21:50, 22 October 2025

Template:Short description Template:Otheruses

In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting in the failure to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.[1][2][3]

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

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (Script error: No such module "Lang".). 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

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

File:Launceston Castle - geograph.org.uk - 22242.jpg
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

Script error: No such module "Portal". Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

References

Template:Reflist

External links

Template:Fallacies

  1. a b c Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".