Hubbry Logo
search button
Sign in
Equivocation
Equivocation
Comunity Hub
History
arrow-down
starMore
arrow-down
bob

Bob

Have a question related to this hub?

bob

Alice

Got something to say related to this hub?
Share it here.

#general is a chat channel to discuss anything related to the hub.
Hubbry Logo
search button
Sign in
Equivocation
Community hub for the Wikipedia article
logoWikipedian hub
Welcome to the community hub built on top of the Equivocation Wikipedia article. Here, you can discuss, collect, and organize anything related to Equivocation. The purpose of the hub is to connect people,...
Add your contribution
Equivocation

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
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

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ 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 978-0-495-09506-4.
  2. ^ 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
  3. ^ Bennett, Bo (April 2015), Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies, Harper torchbooks (first ed.), New York: Ebookit, p. 274, ISBN 1456624539, OCLC 185446787
[edit]