Philosophy: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 or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]
Fallacy of four terms
Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum). 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
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
- 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
- False equivalence: fallacy based on flawed reasoning
- If-by-whiskey: an example
- Mental reservation: a doctrine in moral theology
- No true Scotsman: changing a definition to exclude a counter-example
- 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
- Map-territory relation: concept that words used to describe an underlying reality are arbitrary abstractions not to be confused with the reality itself
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Damer, T. Edward (21 February 2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Cengage Learning. pp. 121–123. ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=-qZabUx0FmkC.
- ↑ 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, https://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=305
| Formal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Categories
 |  |
