| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Last revisionBoth sides next revision |
| glossary:equivocation:index [25.09.23, 10:21:28] – [Equivocation] sascha | glossary:equivocation:index [25.09.23, 10:26:52] – [Equivocation of abstract terms] sascha |
|---|
| > <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 ==== |
