Ambiguity Fallacy
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I was looking at the page on the website for ambiguity fallacy and had a question.
The Description of the fallacy is:
"When an unclear phrase with multiple definitions is used within the argument..."
Does this refer to:
(1) using a phrase more than once but with different meanings (similar to equivocation) or
(2) using an ambiguous phrase once, but the listener might misinterpret it (due to its ambiguity).
The examples given sound more like (1) ("good understanding", "living beings" used more than once), but the "Logical Form" sounds more like (2) (Claim X is made; Y is concluded based on an ambiguous understanding of X).
Perhaps it refers to both but this wasn't made clear.
Version (1) seems to be a fallacy of reasoning (negligently or purposely trying to trick the listener by using a phrase in different ways), whereas (2) seems to be more like sloppiness in writing, causing the listener to misinterpret.
If the meaning is (1) then equivocation would be pretty much the same fallacy, but with a single word used more than once rather than a phrase. (The page does say: "Some will say single words count for the ambiguity fallacy, which is really a specific form of a fallacy known as equivocation." This seems to imply that the ambiguity fallacy (version 1) is a specific form of equivocation, but I think what was meant is that equivocation is a specific form of the ambiguity fallacy.)
Thanks
Comments on Question
Answers
2Both equivocation and the ambiguity fallacy can be either deliberate or unintentional. The former can be a subset of the latter. For example, an equivocation is also ambiguous, but something ambiguous is not always an equivocation. However, simply using "equivocation" would be more accurate in those cases.
I don't care for the definition I used here because it implies it is always intentional.
Does this refer to:
(1) using a phrase more than once but with different meanings (similar to equivocation) or(2) using an ambiguous phrase once, but the listener might misinterpret it (due to its ambiguity).
Either. The error in reasoning is when the person is confident in their interpretation of the ambiguous phrase when the level of confidence is unwarranted. As far as a fallacious technique, it is when the person uses ambiguity to attempt to justify a conclusion (e.g., "George Bush II was a much stronger President than Biden is. That is a fact." - referring to how much each President can bench press while in office).
This is how I understand it:
The equivocation fallacy equivocates a term to make a conclusion.
Example:
1. People told me that I should exercise if I want to have a happy life.
2. But I'm already happy.
3. Therefore, I don't have to exercise to have a happy life.
Here, the term "happy" has two meanings. It refers to a healthy life-style in the first sentence and
it refers to a state of mind in both the second and third statements.
The ambiguity fallacy equivocates a phrase to make a conclusion.
Example:
1. People told me that I should exercise to have a good life.
2. But I already have a good life. I make a decent living.
3. Therefore, I don't have to exercise to have a good life.
Here, the phrase "have a good life" takes two meanings. It refers to a healthy life-style in the first sentence and it refers to having enough means to be comfortable on the second and third sentences.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I consider equivocation to be a fallacy where:
Example: "The poster says 'do something nice for someone'. I'm someone, so do something nice for me!"
(The first sense of 'someone' is 'a person other than yourself'. The second sense of 'someone' is 'a specific person'. Both senses are deployed in the argument, but treated as being the same, making for a misleading argument.)
The ambiguity fallacy does not require you to switch between multiple senses of the same word; it just means the operant terms are not defined, so it is unclear whether the premises support the conclusion.
Example: "If you support equality, then there's no reason to oppose affirmation action. Historically marginalised groups deserve representation."
(The operant is 'equality', which is not defined by the speaker. Thus, they are able to smuggle their ideological assumptions into the argument. The interlocutor or audience might have a different concept of 'equality' to the speaker. Equality for whom? Equality of what? You could also argue that 'affirmative action', which refers to a broad set of policies aimed at levelling the playing field for the disadvantaged, is also too wide to be meaningful when used in this argument.)