|
Equivocate
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 senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. Fallacy of four terms Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (). Below is an example: : Since only man umanis rational. : And no woman is a man ale : Therefore, no woman is rational. The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male. Motte-and-bailey fallacy 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 al ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mental Reservation
Mental reservation (or mental equivocation) is an ethical theory and a doctrine in moral theology which recognizes the "lie of necessity", and holds that when there is a conflict between justice and veracity (ethics), telling the truth, it is justice that should prevail. The doctrine is a special branch of casuistry (case-based reasoning) developed in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. While associated with the Jesuits, it did not originate with them. It is a theory debated by moral theologians, but not part of Canon law. Secular use It was argued in moral theology, and now in ethics, that mental reservation was a way to fulfill obligations both to tell the truth and to keep secrets from those not entitled to know them (for example, because of the Seal of the Confessional and the Catholic Church, seal of the confessional or other clauses of confidentiality). Mental reservation, however, is regarded as unjustifiable without grave reason for withholding the truth. This condi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises that leads to a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" leading to the conclusion "I don't have to wor ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
False Equivalence
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed, faulty, or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." Characteristics This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: In an even more fallacious version, is not required to exist in both sets; merely a similarity of two items in set and in set is cited to assert equivalence among the sets. Example: Exa ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
When A White Horse Is Not A Horse
The White Horse Dialogue in Chinese philosophy is a debate between two unnamed speakers on a proposition often translated as 'a white horse is not a horse'. It appears in the Warring States period text ''Gongsun Longzi'' attributed to Gongsun Long, grouped under the philosophical School of Names in later taxonomies. The original text The dialogue constitutes a chapter of the eponymous ''Gongsun Longzi''. The purported author, also known as "Master Gongsun Long" (), was counted by later scholars among the School of Names in the Hundred Schools of Thought. Most of Gongsun's writings have been lost; the received ''Gongsun Longzi'' text contains only six of the recorded fourteen original chapters. Parts of the dialogue are dislocated and a small number of words are theorized to have been lost early in the text's transmission history. Thus, some commentators and translators rearrange some sentences for clarity. The dialogue is between two unnamed speakers: This dialogue continues w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Syntactic Ambiguity
Syntactic ambiguity, also known as structural ambiguity, amphiboly, or amphibology, is characterized by the potential for a sentence to yield multiple interpretations due to its ambiguous syntax. This form of ambiguity is not derived from the varied meanings of individual words but rather from the relationships among words and clauses within a sentence, concealing interpretations beneath the word order. Consequently, a sentence presents as syntactically ambiguous when it permits reasonable derivation of several possible grammatical structures by an observer. In jurisprudence, the interpretation of syntactically ambiguous phrases in statutory texts or contracts may be done by courts. Occasionally, claims based on highly improbable interpretations of such ambiguities are dismissed as being frivolous litigation and without merit. The term ''parse forest'' refers to the collection of all possible syntactic structures, known as '' parse trees'', that can represent the ambiguous sente ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Principle Of Explosion
In classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, from a contradiction, any proposition (including its negation) can be inferred; this is known as deductive explosion. The proof of this principle was first given by 12th-century French philosopher William of Soissons. Due to the principle of explosion, the existence of a contradiction ( inconsistency) in a formal axiomatic system is disastrous; since any statement can be proven, it trivializes the concepts of truth and falsity. Around the turn of the 20th century, the discovery of contradictions such as Russell's paradox at the foundations of mathematics thus threatened the entire structure of mathematics. Mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege, Ernst Zermelo, Abraham Fraenkel, and Thoralf Skolem put much effort into revising set theory to eliminate these contradictions, resulting in the mo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Polysemy
Polysemy ( or ; ) is the capacity for a Sign (semiotics), sign (e.g. a symbol, morpheme, word, or phrase) to have multiple related meanings. For example, a word can have several word senses. Polysemy is distinct from ''monosemy'', where a word has a single meaning. Polysemy is distinct from homonymy—or homophone, homophony—which is an Accident (philosophy), accidental similarity between two or more words (such as ''bear'' the animal, and the verb wikt:bear#Etymology 2, ''bear''); whereas homonymy is a mere linguistic coincidence, polysemy is not. In discerning whether a given set of meanings represent polysemy or homonymy, it is often necessary to look at the history of the word to see whether the two meanings are historically related. Lexicography, Dictionary writers often list polysemes (words or phrases with different, but related, senses) in the same entry (that is, under the same headword) and enter homonyms as separate headwords (usually with a numbering convention such ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plausible Deniability
Plausible deniability is the ability of people, typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command, to deny knowledge or responsibility for actions committed by or on behalf of members of their organizational hierarchy. They may do so because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. If illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts to insulate themselves and shift the blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible (credible), but sometimes, it makes any accusations only unactionable. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions for the plausible avoidance of responsibility for o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Persuasive Definition
A persuasive definition is a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the true or commonly accepted meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as "freedom", "terrorism", "antisemitism, "democracy", etc. In argumentation the use of a persuasive definition is sometimes called definist fallacy. (The latter sometimes more broadly refers to a fallacy of a definition based on improper identification of two distinct properties.) Examples of persuasive definitions (definist fallacies) include: * Democrat – "a leftist who desires to overtax the corporations and abolish freedom in the economic sphere". * Atheist – "someone who doesn't yet realize that God exists." Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as polit ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
No True Scotsman
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", or other similar terms. Philosopher Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an " ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt. The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy: Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge." Person A: "But no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Occurrence The "no true Scotsman" fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions: * not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified ''a posteriori'' assertion * offering a modified assertion t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
If-by-whiskey
Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat Jr. (October 2, 1922February 23, 1996) was an American judge, law professor, and state representative in Mississippi, notable for his 1952 speech on the floor of the Mississippi state legislature concerning whiskey. Reportedly the speech took Sweat two and a half months to write.Clarion Ledger , "On June 3, Soggy's speech will come to life" May 25, 2003 The speech is renowned for the grand rhetorical terms in which it seems to come down firmly and decisively on both sides of the question. The speech gave rise to the phrase "if-by-whiskey", used to illustrate such equivocation in argument. Career Sweat was elected to the Mississippi House in 1947, at the age of 24. He served only one fiv ...[...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
