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]
An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [ 12 ] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [ 13 ] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance ...
And, you know, the kids, like all kids, loved the dog, and I just want to say this right now, that, regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it. This was a straw man response; his critics had never criticized the dog as a gift or suggested he return it.
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 ...
The following statements are examples of false equivalence: [3] "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no more harmful than when your neighbor drips some oil on the ground when changing his car's oil." The "false equivalence" is the comparison between things differing by many orders of magnitude: [ 3 ] Deepwater Horizon spilled 210 million US gal ...
So-called deviant logics reject some of these basic intuitions and propose alternative rules governing the validity of arguments. [44] [51] [52] For example, intuitionistic logics reject the law of excluded middle and the double negation elimination while paraconsistent logics reject the principle of explosion. [52] [53] [54]
Venn diagram for "A or B", with inclusive or (OR) Venn diagram for "A or B", with exclusive or (XOR). The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct must be false because the other disjunct is true; in fact they may both be true because "or" is defined inclusively rather than exclusively.