 |
| Today |
Updated for an academia.edu entry on August 14, 2022. Mainly a review of the Pirie text.
BLACKBURN, SIMON, (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Pirie:
'Equivocation' means the use of words ambiguously. Often done with intent to deceive, it can even deceive the perpetrator.
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when words are used with more than one meaning, even though the soundness of the reasoning requires the same use to be sustained throughout. (90).
Happiness is the end of life
The end of life is death
So happiness is death (90).
Pirie notes importantly that the above argument is valid in format. (90) But it is fallacious.
I would deny the proposition that happiness is the end of life. I do not agree. Happiness can be part of life.
Based on the Pirie's point that the argument format is valid; this again, as I have noted in previous articles, demonstrates the difference between a logical argument and a reasonable argument,
More important is the reasonableness and soundness (truthfulness) of an argument.
A key to denying questionable arguments is to deny at the proposition & premise stage.
'Equivocation' means the use of words ambiguously. Often done with intent to deceive, it can even deceive the perpetrator.
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when words are used with more than one meaning, even though the soundness of the reasoning requires the same use to be sustained throughout. (90).
Happiness is the end of life
The end of life is death
So happiness is death (90).
Pirie notes importantly that the above argument is valid in format. (90) But it is fallacious.
I would deny the proposition that happiness is the end of life. I do not agree. Happiness can be part of life.
Based on the Pirie's point that the argument format is valid; this again, as I have noted in previous articles, demonstrates the difference between a logical argument and a reasonable argument,
More important is the reasonableness and soundness (truthfulness) of an argument.
A key to denying questionable arguments is to deny at the proposition & premise stage.
A proposition is the same as a statement.
A premise (s) is to support the conclusion.
'Equivocation use of words is fallacious because it invites us to transfer what we are prepared to accept about one concept onto another one which happens to have the same name.' (90).
'Calvin Coolidge was once asked:
'What do you think of the singer's execution?'
(He replied: I'm all for it') (91).
Blackburn: Equivocate
'To make a statement that is capable of being taken in more than one way, with the aim of exploiting the ambiguity.' (124).
A friend: 'I saw Chucky, murdering someone last night.'
Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?'
A friend: 'I saw Chucky (fictional doll), murdering someone last night.' (on television)
Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?' (In regard to Howard: also known as Chucky)
Why assume it is our friend, Chucky?
This would be using fallacious reasoning. A fallacious proposition & premise.
'Equivocation use of words is fallacious because it invites us to transfer what we are prepared to accept about one concept onto another one which happens to have the same name.' (90).
'Calvin Coolidge was once asked:
'What do you think of the singer's execution?'
(He replied: I'm all for it') (91).
Blackburn: Equivocate
'To make a statement that is capable of being taken in more than one way, with the aim of exploiting the ambiguity.' (124).
A friend: 'I saw Chucky, murdering someone last night.'
Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?'
A friend: 'I saw Chucky (fictional doll), murdering someone last night.' (on television)
Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?' (In regard to Howard: also known as Chucky)
Why assume it is our friend, Chucky?
This would be using fallacious reasoning. A fallacious proposition & premise.
Cited
'Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.'
Example
Cited
'Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world.'
(Argue1 = Argue more effectively)
(Argue2 = Argue with hostility)
(An argument does not necessarily imply hostility)
BLACKBURN, SIMON, (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY (2022): 'Equivocation', Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair, Texas State University.
 |
| Trulyfallacious.com |
