Equivocation

Revision as of 07:22, 21 November 2024 by imported>Denisarona (→‎Motte-and-bailey fallacy)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Short description Template: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 senses within an argument.<ref name="Damer2008">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Citation</ref>

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.<ref name="Damer2008"/>

Fallacy of four termsEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms ({{#invoke:Lang|lang}}). Below is an example:

Since only man [human] is rational.
And no woman is a man [male].
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.

Motte-and-bailey fallacyEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

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 alsoEdit

Template:Portal Template:Div col

Template:Div col end

ReferencesEdit

Template:Reflist

External linksEdit

Template:Fallacies