Equivocation
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the failure to define one's terms, or knowingly and deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand.[1][2][3]
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.[1]
Fallacy of four terms
Equivocation in a syllogism (a chain of reasoning) produces a fallacy of four terms (quaternio terminorum). Below is an example:
- Since only man [human] is rational.
- And no woman is a man [male].
- Therefore, no woman is rational.[1]
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 also
- Antanaclasis: A related purposeful rhetorical device
- Circumlocution: Phrasing to explain something without saying it
- Equivocality: Organizational information theory
- Etymological fallacy: A kind of linguistic misconception
- Evasion (ethics): Tell the truth while deceiving
- False equivalence: Fallacy based on flawed reasoning
- If-by-whiskey: An example
- Map-territory relation: Concept that words used to describe an underlying reality are arbitrary abstractions not to be confused with the reality itself
- Mental reservation: A doctrine in moral theology
- No true Scotsman: Changing a definition to exclude a counter-example
- Persuasive definition: Skewed definition of term
- Plausible deniability: A blame-shifting technique
- Polysemy: The property of word or phrase having certain type of multiple meanings
- Principle of explosion: One of the fundamental laws in logic
- Syntactic ambiguity, Amphiboly, Amphibology: Ambiguity of a sentence by its grammatical structure
- When a white horse is not a horse: An example
References
- ^ a b c Damer, T. Edward (21 February 2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Cengage Learning. pp. 121–123. ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4.
- ^ Fischer, D. H. (June 1970), Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought, Harper torchbooks (first ed.), New York: HarperCollins, p. 274, ISBN 978-0-06-131545-9, OCLC 185446787
- ^ Bennett, Bo (April 2015), Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies, Harper torchbooks (first ed.), New York: Ebookit, p. 274, ISBN 1456624539, OCLC 185446787
External links
The dictionary definition of equivocation at Wiktionary
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.