Difference between revisions of "Equivocation"
m (catg: rhet. decep. -> log. fallacies) |
(some rewriting & reorg) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Category:Logical Fallacies]] | + | [[Category:Logical Fallacies]]In the strictest sense, [[equivocation]] is the use of different meanings of a word as if they were the same thing. |
| − | In the strictest sense, [[equivocation]] is the use of different | + | ==Elaboration== |
| − | + | In a broader sense, equivocation need not be limited to a single word; a phrase or even concept may have different facets or be applied to different instances of the same idea which, although related, are not freely interchangeable. A word used in the same ''sense'' may even be referring to a different things: | |
| − | In a broader sense, | ||
*'''Person A''': I refuse to continue this argument without a mediator. | *'''Person A''': I refuse to continue this argument without a mediator. | ||
*'''Person B''': No, I won't allow you to just back out of this. You don't have the right. | *'''Person B''': No, I won't allow you to just back out of this. You don't have the right. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Person B''': So what's to negotiate? You've already dictated your terms. | *'''Person B''': So what's to negotiate? You've already dictated your terms. | ||
| − | In this case, Person B is equivocating Person A's usage of "terms" | + | In this case, Person B is equivocating Person A's usage of "terms" meaning '''terms under which A is willing to continue the discussion''', with '''terms which might be arrived at in that discussion''' (presumably with the aid of a mediator). (In the real-world example from which this was excerpted and paraphrased, there was substantial discussion between the last two lines, making it less obvious where the equivocation had taken place.) |
| + | ==Reference== | ||
| + | * {{wikipedia|Equivocation}} | ||
| + | ==Related Articles== | ||
| + | * [[Equivocation]] is a type of [[conflation]]. | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
This might also be called "Confusion of Terms", though I have not been able to find any references to that phrase clearly used in this way. | This might also be called "Confusion of Terms", though I have not been able to find any references to that phrase clearly used in this way. | ||
Revision as of 14:21, 20 May 2006
In the strictest sense, equivocation is the use of different meanings of a word as if they were the same thing.
Elaboration
In a broader sense, equivocation need not be limited to a single word; a phrase or even concept may have different facets or be applied to different instances of the same idea which, although related, are not freely interchangeable. A word used in the same sense may even be referring to a different things:
- Person A: I refuse to continue this argument without a mediator.
- Person B: No, I won't allow you to just back out of this. You don't have the right.
- Person A: I don't need your approval; those are my terms, take them or leave them.
- Person B: So what's to negotiate? You've already dictated your terms.
In this case, Person B is equivocating Person A's usage of "terms" meaning terms under which A is willing to continue the discussion, with terms which might be arrived at in that discussion (presumably with the aid of a mediator). (In the real-world example from which this was excerpted and paraphrased, there was substantial discussion between the last two lines, making it less obvious where the equivocation had taken place.)
Reference
Related Articles
- Equivocation is a type of conflation.
Notes
This might also be called "Confusion of Terms", though I have not been able to find any references to that phrase clearly used in this way.