Equivocation
(Difference between revisions)
(radical formatting change) |
Benjaburns (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
#* There are multiple meanings of the word ''[[faith]]''. | #* There are multiple meanings of the word ''[[faith]]''. | ||
# "[[No true Scotsman]]" fallacy. | # "[[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''. | + | #* 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]]. | # [[The existence of laws implies a law-giver]]. | ||
#* This stems from a confusion between [[natural law]]s and legal laws. | #* This stems from a confusion between [[natural law]]s and legal laws. | ||
Revision as of 18:28, 30 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 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.
- Evolution is only a theory.
- This plays on the confusion between the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word theory.
