Equivocation

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 5: Line 5:
 
This fallacy is used frequently in the service of [[apologetics]] arguments.  A few examples:
 
This fallacy is used frequently in the service of [[apologetics]] arguments.  A few examples:
  
# [[Atheism requires faith]].  There are multiple meanings of the word "faith".
+
# [[Atheism is based on faith]].  There are multiple meanings of the word "faith".
 
# [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy.  When somebody says "So-and-so wasn't really a [[Christian]] because he did that," they are relying on ambiguity in the word "Christian".
 
# [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy.  When somebody says "So-and-so wasn't really a [[Christian]] because he did that," they are relying on ambiguity in the word "Christian".
  

Revision as of 12:24, 15 June 2006

Equivocation is a logical fallacy that involves taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another.

For example: "A feather is light. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark." There are two meanings of the word "light." The first sentence assumes a meaning that is the opposite of "heavy," not the opposite of "dark."

This fallacy is used frequently in the service of apologetics arguments. A few examples:

  1. Atheism is based on faith. There are multiple meanings of the word "faith".
  2. No true Scotsman fallacy. When somebody says "So-and-so wasn't really a Christian because he did that," they are relying on ambiguity in the word "Christian".

External Links

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox