Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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. [1] [2] 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]
Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended. [21] Ambiguous middle term – using a middle term with multiple meanings. [22] Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised. [23]
In turn, material fallacies may be placed into the more general category of informal fallacies. Verbal fallacies may be placed in either formal or informal classifications: Compare equivocation, which is a word- or phrase-based ambiguity, to the fallacy of composition, which is premise- and inference-based ambiguity. [17]
Apples and oranges are both similar-sized seeded fruits that grow on trees, but that does not make the two interchangeable. A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.
Equivocation is a logical fallacy whereby an argument is made with a term which changes semantics in the course of the argument.. Equivocation may also refer to: . Equivocation (information theory), measures the amount of information that is contained in a random variable or other unknown quantity, given the knowledge over another random variable
The testimony – first given in 2020 to a grand jury – was affirmed, after some equivocation, Tuesday by former Trooper John Jakobowski. ... People. Kate Beckinsale denies she kissed Matt Rife ...
In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation: using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time, creating a fourth term even though only three distinct words are used. The resulting argument sounds like the (valid) first example above, but is in fact structured like the invalid ...
In some circumstances, a person may argue that the fact that Y people believe X to be true implies that X is false. This line of thought is closely related to the appeal to spite fallacy given that it invokes a person's contempt for the general populace or something about the general populace to persuade them that most are wrong about X.