| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| glossary:equivocation:index [25.09.23, 10:26:52] – [Equivocation of abstract terms] sascha | glossary:equivocation:index [25.09.23, 13:10:45] (current) – [Ambiguities in concepts and positions] sascha |
|---|
| ==== Ambiguities in concepts and positions ==== | ==== Ambiguities in concepts and positions ==== |
| |
| Not only individual words or terms can be confounded due to ambiguities, but also complex concepts or positions can be affected by this. It is also valid that the more abstract and complicated they are, the more difficult it can be to recognise ambiguities. | Not only individual words or terms can be confounded due to ambiguities, but also complex concepts or positions can be affected by this. It is also valid that the more abstract and complicated they are, the more difficult it can be to recognise ambiguities. |
| |
| The fallacy of conflating similar but distinct concepts is known as <span maniculus "see:">“[[ambiguity:motte-and-bailey|Motte-and-Bailey]]</span>”. | A type of fallacy of both reasoning and argumentation that is based on vague or ambiguous definitions of terms is the [[ambiguity:motte-and-bailey|Motte-and-Bailey fallacy]]: this is the name given to conflating two or more related, but clearly distinguishable positions, of which only one is argumentatively easy to defend. These are also often based on //equivocations// or even [[rhetoric:unfair_discussion_tactics:redefinition|redefinitions]] of the terms used. |
| |
| | ==== Copula and conjunctions ==== |
| |
| FIXME **This article is still under development.** | Not only the actual terms can be ambiguous, but also the often-overseen parts of the grammatical structure. |
| | |
| | In particular, this concerns the //verbs// that define the relationship between subject and object – and especially in natural language phrases, which often do not meet the same requirements of precision as would be needed for formal logical expressions. |
| | |
| | Consider the following example: |
| | |
| | > 1 //is// a number. |
| | > 2 //is// a number. |
| | > <span conclusio>Therefore: <s invalid>1 //is// 2</s>.</span> |
| | |
| | Here the copula verb “is” is used in the two premises in the sense of "is an //element// of", while in the conclusion it is used as "is //equivalent// to". These are of course not the same |
| | |
| | Incidentally, the above [[glossary:syllogism|syllogism]] also commits the error of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:fallacies_of_distribution:undistributed_middle|undistributed middle term]]. |
| | |
| | A similar problem concerns the [[glossary:disjunction|disjunction]] (denoted by the junctor "and"), where a distinction must be made between an //inclusive// ([[glossary:adjunction|adjunction]]) and an //exclusive// ([[glossary:contravalence|contravalence]]) variant. |
| | |
| | ===== Sources of ambiguity ===== |
| | ==== Word ambiguities ==== |
| | |
| | Words can be ambiguous in several ways; this is explained in more detail in the article on [[glossary:equivocation:homonymy|homonymy]]. Here are just a few examples of the different types of //homonyms//: |
| | |
| | * **Polysemy:** FIXME |
| | * **Homographs:** FIXME |
| | * **Homophone:** FIXME |
| | |
| | Furthermore, equivocations can arise from the fact that a term has been used in a figurative sense (see: [[glossary:equivocation:metonymy|metonymy]]). |
| | |
| | ==== Grammatical and phonetic ambiguities ==== |
| | |
| | If the ambiguity is due to the grammatical structure, this is called an [[glossary:equivocation:amphiboly|amphiboly]]. |
| | |
| | In many cases, //amphiboles// are linked to intonation or a specific melody of the phrase. In these cases, they are called [[glossary:equivocation:prosody|prosodies]]. |
| | |
| | ==== Intensional ambiguities ==== |
| | |
| | If an ambiguity results from the way in which the terms are refered to, we speak of an [[glossary:equivocation:intensional|intensional equivocation]]. |
| | |
| | ===== Subpages ===== |
| | |
| | FIXME **The sub-pages of this article are still under development.** |
| | |
| | * [[glossary:equivocation:amphiboly|Amphiboly]] |
| | * [[glossary:equivocation:homonymy|Homonymy]] |
| | * [[glossary:equivocation:intensional|Intensional equivocation]] |
| | * [[glossary:equivocation:metonymy|Metonymy]] |
| | * [[glossary:equivocation:prosody|Prosody]] |
| | * [[glossary:equivocation:weakly_defined_terms|Weakly defined terms]] |
| | |
| | ===== See also ===== |
| | |
| | * [[ambiguity:index|(Fallacies of) ambiguity]] |
| | * [[ambiguity:syntactic:generic_generalization|Generic generalisation]] |
| | * [[ambiguity:motte-and-bailey|Motte-and-Bailey fallacy]] |
| | * [[glossary:extension|Extension]] |
| | * [[glossary:intension|Intension]] |
| | * [[abstraction:semiotic_fallacy|Semiotic fallacy]] |
| | * [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:index|Four-term fallacy]] |
| | |
| | ===== More information ===== |
| | |
| | * [[wp>Equivocation]] on //Wikipedia// |
| | * [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation|Equivocation]] on //RationalWiki// |
| | * [[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html|Equivocation]] on //Fallacy Files// |
| |
| {{page>templates:banner#Short-BG-Article&noheader&nofooter}} | {{page>templates:banner#Short-BG-Article&noheader&nofooter}} |
