A contradiction in terms? Or failure to clearly state terms?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
There is a certain style of argument that seems fallacious because its terms appear to be in contradiction. It involves denying that X is taking place, then going on to describe it in other terms (with the implication that this is a positive development).
Logical form:
P1) X is not happening.
Implicit P) 'X' = X1 since we are dealing with one sense of the word
P2) X is then described in terms more favourable to the arguer
Implicit P) Call this X2
C) Therefore X is happening (where X = X2)
Confused by the introduction and logical form? Here's an example:
"There is no such thing as call-out culture. You're simply being held to account for your bigoted statements."
Above statement seems to affirm the existence of X, while denying it. This is because X1 is denied, while X2 is affirmed (yet X2 is treated as if it were distinct from X. The idea that people are being 'held to account' for bigotry is being contested here, yet the speaker acts as if people are missing that).
Would this be an example of contradictio in adjecto or equivocation?
Answers
3I don't see a fallacy in the usual sense. Both sides are trying to spin the argument using value-laden terms. I suppose that this could be a chance for both sides to detail their moral arguments in more detail, which would be more productive.
I would call this distinction without a difference and the ambiguity fallacy .
I'd say equivocation. The Fallacy of Equivocation is the misleading use of a term (in this case, the proposition “X”) with more than one meaning, usually accomplished by glossing over the meaning initially intended in the discussion. Restated: it is to change the definition of a word within the discussion. Often, this is a technique to move the goalposts.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course