Equivocation
From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(Reentered "prayer is meditation" example. See discussion page.) |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Equivocation is a [[ | + | 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." | + | 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. | + | This fallacy is used frequently in the service of [[apologetics]] arguments. A few relevant examples: |
| − | + | # [[Atheism is based on faith]]. | |
| − | # [[Atheism is based on faith]]. | + | #* There are multiple meanings of the word ''[[faith]]'', for example things you trust in without critical analysis or things which people believe with good evidence. |
| − | # [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy. | + | # [[Prayer]] is meditation. |
| + | #* Redefining prayer as only a form of mental meditation rather than petitions for things is often used to justify the efficacy of prayer in the petition context. | ||
| + | # "[[No true Scotsman]]" fallacy. | ||
| + | #* When someone says, "That person wasn't really a [[Christian]] because he did that," they are relying on ambiguity in the word ''Christian'' and redefining it to suit their needs. | ||
| + | # [[The existence of laws implies a law-giver]]. | ||
| + | #* This stems from a confusion between [[natural law]]s and legal laws. Even legal laws do not always require a law giver. [[Wikipedia:Common law|Common law]] can involve customs which are [[Meme]]s that evolved over time. | ||
| + | # [[Evolution is only a theory]]. | ||
| + | #* This plays on the confusion between the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word ''theory''. | ||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
* [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html Fallacy files] | * [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html Fallacy files] | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Logical fallacies}} | ||
[[Category: Logical fallacies]] | [[Category: Logical fallacies]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:54, 10 April 2012
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 relevant examples:
- Atheism is based on faith.
- There are multiple meanings of the word faith, for example things you trust in without critical analysis or things which people believe with good evidence.
- Prayer is meditation.
- Redefining prayer as only a form of mental meditation rather than petitions for things is often used to justify the efficacy of prayer in the petition context.
- "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
- When someone says, "That person wasn't really a Christian because he did that," they are relying on ambiguity in the word Christian and redefining it to suit their needs.
- The existence of laws implies a law-giver.
- This stems from a confusion between natural laws and legal laws. Even legal laws do not always require a law giver. Common law can involve customs which are Memes that evolved over time.
- Evolution is only a theory.
- This plays on the confusion between the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word theory.
External Links
