Equivocation

{{Short description|Misleading use of a term with multiple meanings}}

{{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.{{cite book|author=Damer, T. Edward|title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qZabUx0FmkC|date=21 February 2008|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-0-495-09506-4|pages=121–123}}{{citation |title = Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought |publisher= HarperCollins |isbn= 978-0-06-131545-9 |date=June 1970 |location= New York |oclc= 185446787 |series= Harper torchbooks |edition= first |first= D. H. |last= Fischer |author-link= David Hackett Fischer |page= 274 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=305}}

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.

Fallacy of four terms

{{Main|Fallacy of four terms}}

Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms ({{lang|la|quaternio terminorum}}). Below is an example:

: Since only man [human] is rational.

: And no woman is a man [male].

: Therefore, no woman is rational.

The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male.

Motte-and-bailey fallacy

{{Main|Motte-and-bailey fallacy}}

File:Launceston_Castle_-_geograph.org.uk_-_22242.jpg]]

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

{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}

{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}

{{Div col end}}

References

{{Reflist}}