Difference between revisions of "Ambiguity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The same [[word]] is used with two different meanings. For example: | The same [[word]] is used with two different meanings. For example: | ||
| − | "Criminal [[actions]] are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal." | + | "Criminal [[actions]] are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal [[actions]], thus all murder trials are illegal." |
"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there." | "The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there." | ||
Latest revision as of 05:03, 10 September 2014
In an ambiguity fallacy a word or phrase is used uncleanly. There are two ways in which this may occur:
- The word or phrase may be ambiguous, in which case it has more than one distinct meaning.
- The word or phrase may be vague, in which case it has no distinct meaning.
Equivocation
The same word is used with two different meanings. For example:
"Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal."
"The sign said 'fine for parking here', and since it was fine, I parked there."
