Equivocation
(Difference between revisions)
(radical formatting change) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Equivocation is a [[logical fallacy]] that involves taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another. | 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]]''. |
| − | # [[No true Scotsman]] fallacy. | + | # "[[No true Scotsman]]" fallacy. |
| − | # [[The existence of laws implies a law-giver]]. | + | #* When someone says, "That person wasn't really a [[Christian]] because he did that," they are relying on ambiguity in the word ''Christian''. |
| − | # [[Evolution is only a theory]]. | + | # [[The existence of laws implies a law-giver]]. |
| + | #* This stems from a confusion between [[natural law]]s and legal laws. | ||
| + | # [[Evolution is only a theory]]. | ||
| + | #* This plays on the confusion between the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word ''theory''. | ||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
Revision as of 23:04, 27 August 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 relevant examples:
- Atheism is based on faith.
- There are multiple meanings of the word faith.
- "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.
- The existence of laws implies a law-giver.
- This stems from a confusion between natural laws and legal laws.
- Evolution is only a theory.
- This plays on the confusion between the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word theory.
