| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision |
| glossary:equivocation:index [30.08.23, 16:24:04] – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation 2a02:2788:1028:4b3:f1f3:72d9:925c:ad80 | glossary:equivocation:index [25.09.23, 10:26:52] – [Equivocation of abstract terms] sascha |
|---|
| ====== Equivocation ====== | ====== Equivocation ====== |
| |
| Use of a term in multiple different meanings. Equivocations are a possible source of [[logic:emergence:ambiguity:index|fallacies of ambiguity]], as well as misunderstandings and a rhetorical device of confusion, as in the following example: | Use of a term in multiple different meanings. Equivocations are a possible source of [[ambiguity:index|fallacies of ambiguity]], as well as misunderstandings and a rhetorical device of confusion. |
| |
| > Gandalf: //Have you been <u ambiguous "meaning: secretly listening to a conversation">eavesdropping</u>?// | See, for example, the following example: |
| | |
| | > Gandalf: //Have you been <u ambiguous "meaning: secretly listening to a conversation">eavesdropping</u>?// |
| > Sam: //I haven’t <u ambiguous "meaning: letting the eaves of a house fall">dropped no eaves</u>, Sir, honestly!// | > Sam: //I haven’t <u ambiguous "meaning: letting the eaves of a house fall">dropped no eaves</u>, Sir, honestly!// |
| |
| In this movie quote, Sam is trying to using the term “[[wp>Eavesdropping|eavesdropping]]” (or “dropping [[wp>Eaves|eaves]]”) with a very different meaning than Gandalf. Indeed it appears as if he is deliberately confusing the meaning in order to talk himself out of an unpleasant situation. | In this movie quote, Sam is trying to using the term “[[wp>Eavesdropping|eavesdropping]]” (or “dropping [[wp>Eaves|eaves]]”) with a very different meaning than Gandalf. Indeed, it appears as if he is deliberately confusing the meaning in order to talk himself out of an unpleasant situation. |
| |
| An example of an //equivocation// in logical statements could be the following<span noprint> ([[app>#celarent|Open in Syllogism-Finder App]])</span>: | An example of an //equivocation// in logical statements could be the following<span noprint> ([[app>#celarent|Open in Syllogism-Finder App]])</span>: |
| > Nothing //<u ambiguous"equivocation">light</u>// can ever be //dark//. | > Nothing //<u ambiguous"equivocation">light</u>// can ever be //dark//. |
| > All //feathers// are //<u ambiguous"equivocation">light</u>//. | > All //feathers// are //<u ambiguous"equivocation">light</u>//. |
| > Therefore: <s invalid>no //feather// can be //dark//.</s> | > <s conclusio invalid>Therefore, no //feather// can ever be //dark//.</s> |
| | |
| | The term "light" is used in two different meanings here: in the //major// (first) premise is stands for the opposite of "dark", but for the opposite of "heavy" in the //minor// (second) one. By equivocation of the term, this [[glossary:syllogism|syllogism]] specifically commits the fallacy of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:ambiguous_middle|ambiguous middle term]]. |
| |
| The term "light" is used here in two different meanings here: in the major premise is stands for the opposite of "dark", but for the opposite of "heavy" in the minor one. By equivocation of the term, this [[glossary:syllogism|syllogism]] specifically commits the fallacy of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:ambiguous_middle|ambiguous middle term]]. | |
| ===== Equivocation of abstract terms ===== | ===== Equivocation of abstract terms ===== |
| |
| > <span conclusio>Therefore: <s invalid "invalid">Socrates is a species</s>.</span> | > <span conclusio>Therefore: <s invalid "invalid">Socrates is a species</s>.</span> |
| |
| Here, the term “human” in the //major// (first) clause is used as a //generic// term, i.e. it refers to the genus “human” as a whole, while the same term in the //minor// (second) clause refers specifically to the //individuals// of that genus. One could thus rephrase the latter as: "Socrates is an individual of the human genus" (see also: <span maniculus "go to:">[[bad_ideas:abstraction:semiotic_fallacy|semiotic fallacy]]</span>). | Here, the term “human” in the //major// (first) clause is used as a //generic// term, i.e. it refers to the genus “human” as a whole, while the same term in the //minor// (second) clause refers specifically to the //individuals// of that genus. One could thus rephrase the latter as: "Socrates is an individual of the human genus" (see also: <span maniculus "go to:">[[abstraction:semiotic_fallacy|semiotic fallacy]]</span>). |
| |
| Since these two meanings have different [[glossary:extension|extensions]], this is a case of //equivocation// and thus it commits the fallacy of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:ambiguous_middle|ambiguous middle term]]. | Since these two meanings have different [[glossary:extension|extensions]], this is a case of //equivocation// and thus it commits the fallacy of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:ambiguous_middle|ambiguous middle term]]. |
| |
| In principle, such [[logic:emergence:ambiguity:index|fallacies of ambiguity]] are easiest to commit if the terms used are rather complex, abstract, vague – and possibly even contradictory defined (<span maniculus "see:">[[logic:emergence:ambiguity:index|weakly defined terms]]</span>). | In principle, such [[ambiguity:index|fallacies of ambiguity]] are easiest to commit if the terms used are rather complex, abstract, vague – and possibly even contradictory defined (<span maniculus "see:">[[glossary/equivocation:weakly_defined_terms|weakly defined terms]]</span>). |
| |
| ==== Ambiguities in concepts and positions ==== | ==== Ambiguities in concepts and positions ==== |
