Equivocation

Description:

The argument depends upon an ambiguity in the meaning of a word.

Examples:

"There are no convincing arguments in books. In order to be convincing, an argument has to be sound, but arguments written books clearly do not make any noise."

"Everyone should fight for what they believe in. You disagree with my beliefs, so I'm going to punch you in the nose."

Discussion:

The fallacy of Equivocation mimics good reasoning in a fairly obvious way: assuming that the shift in the meaning of words could be overlooked, the argument would be good reasoning, having apparently true premisses and an apparently valid form. Moreover, much of the power and beauty of language is contained in its ability to express multiple meanings, and subtle shades of meaning, with a single well-turned phrase; so, we sometimes overlook or forgive shifts in meaning. But doing so can create room for a deceptively persuasive misuse of multiple meaning, i.e. bad reasoning.

Source: Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations 4 (165b: 25 - 35).

WELCOME                     EXPLANATION OF PRINCIPLES                                     TABLE OF FALLACIES                        EXERCISES                     INDEX