Equivocation is a fallacy of ambiguity in which a word or phrase changes meaning within an argument but appears to have the same meaning throughout. The fallacy occurs when a premise has two interpretations, one acceptable one unacceptable, and when it is the unacceptable interpretation that is required by the conclusion.
Example:
"The sign says fine for parking. Since it is fine, I can park here."
Here the word "fine" has two different meanings. Initially it means a sum of money extracted as a penalty by an authority. When used in this way the premise is acceptable. In the conclusion, the word fine changes to something which is satisfactory or acceptable. When we apply this changed definition to the word fine in the initial premise we find that it is now unacceptable.
Example:
"A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore a feather cannot be dark."
Example:
"Only man is logical. No woman is man. Therefore, no woman is logical."
Example:
“Gambling should be legalized because it is something we can’t avoid. It is an integral part of human experience; people gamble every time they get in their cars or decide to get married.”
Critical Thinking Notes (Robert Moir)
Attacking Faulty Reasoning
No comments:
Post a Comment