Editing Equivocation

{{Short description|Misleading use of a term with multiple meanings}}
{{Otheruses}}

In [[logic]], '''equivocation''' ("calling two different things by the same name") is an [[informal fallacy]] resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple [[word sense|senses]] within an argument.<ref name="Damer2008">{{cite book|author=Damer, T. Edward|title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qZabUx0FmkC|date=21 February 2008|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-0-495-09506-4|pages=121–123}}</ref><ref>{{citation |title = Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought |publisher= HarperCollins |isbn= 978-0-06-131545-9 |date=June 1970 |location= New York |oclc= 185446787 |series= Harper torchbooks |edition= first  |first= D. H. |last= Fischer |author-link= David Hackett Fischer |page= 274 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=305}}</ref>

It is a type of [[semantic ambiguity|ambiguity]] that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct [[Meaning (linguistics)|meanings]], not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.<ref name="Damer2008"/>

==Fallacy of four terms==
{{Main|Fallacy of four terms}}

Equivocation in a [[syllogism]] (a chain of reasoning) produces a [[fallacy of four terms]] ({{lang|la|quaternio terminorum}}). Below is an example:

: Since only man [human] is rational.
: And no woman is a man [male].
: Therefore, no woman is rational.<ref name="Damer2008" />

The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male.

==Motte-and-bailey fallacy==
{{Main|Motte-and-bailey fallacy}}
[[File:Launceston_Castle_-_geograph.org.uk_-_22242.jpg|thumb|The motte (raised area) and bailey (walled courtyard) defenses at [[Launceston Castle]]]]
Equivocation can also be used to conflate two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend and one much more controversial. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.

==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Antanaclasis]]: A related purposeful rhetorical device
* [[Circumlocution]]: Phrasing to explain something without saying it
* [[Organizational information theory#Equivocality|Equivocality: Organizational information theory]]
* [[Etymological fallacy]]: A kind of linguistic misconception
* [[Evasion (ethics)]]: Tell the truth while deceiving
* [[False equivalence]]: Fallacy based on flawed reasoning
* [[If-by-whiskey]]: An example
* [[Map-territory relation]]: Concept that words used to describe an underlying reality are arbitrary abstractions not to be confused with the reality itself 
* [[Mental reservation]]: A doctrine in moral theology
* [[No true Scotsman]]: Changing a definition to exclude a counter-example
* [[Persuasive definition]]: Skewed definition of term
* [[Plausible deniability]]: A blame-shifting technique
* [[Polysemy]]: The property of word or phrase having certain type of multiple meanings
* [[Principle of explosion]]: One of the fundamental laws in logic
* [[Syntactic ambiguity]], Amphiboly, Amphibology: Ambiguity of a sentence by its grammatical structure
* [[When a white horse is not a horse]]: An example
{{Div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
* {{Wiktionary inline|equivocation}}

{{Fallacies}}

[[Category:Verbal fallacies]]
[[Category:Ambiguity]]