Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of AmbiguityWhat is a fallacy of Ambiguity? Some arguments are constructed using ambiguous words or phrases, whose meaning shift and change within the course of the argument, thus rendering them fallacious. These fallacies of ambiguity occur in several forms:1. Equivocation: Some words have more than one literal meaning. When we confuse the several meanings of a word or phrase- accidentally or deliberately- then, we use the word equivocally. If we do that in the context of an argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. Examples of Equivocation:E.g.: Who did you pass on the road? the King went on, holding his hand out to the messenger for some hay. Nobody, said the messenger. Quite right, said the King; this young lady saw him too. So of course Nobody walks slower than you. In this conversation, the word nobody as first used by the speaker here simply means no person but then the reference to nobody is shifted to a pronoun him as though the word nobody named a person.

2. Amphiboly: When one of the statements in an argument has more than one possible meaning because of the loose or awkward way in which the words in that statement are combined. E.g: In the command, "Save soap and waste paper," the amphibolous use of "waste" results in the problem of determining whether "waste" functions as a verb or as an adjective.

3. Accent:Accent: An argument may turn fallacious when a shift of meaning within it arises from changes in the emphasis given to its words or parts. When the premiss relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion is drawn from it that relies on the meaning of the same words accented differently, the fallacy of accent is committed. Examples of fallacies of accent:E.g.: We Should1 not speak2 ill of our friends3. Depending on the accent there can be three different interpretations:In case of emphasis on 1, a conclusion can be drawn soundly.But it can mean that we should feel free to speak ill of those who are not our friends if the last word 3 is accented. But this would require another presmiss and so is fallacious.Also, it may that we are free to work ill on our friends if only we do not speak of it- in case 2 is accented. But this is invalid too because it is only suggestive from the premiss here but not based on it and requires another well formed premiss to validate it.

Another example can be the use of a sensational heading or a clipped photograph in print media to encourage conclusions rather than on factual findings or publishing only a particular section of a critics judgment on the blurb of a book without indicating the original response (with dots) or whether passages have been omitted; thereby distorting the response to draw mistaken conclusions.

4. Composition: This mistake is made a) when one mistakes the attributes of a part to the attributes of the whole itself. E.g.: Every course I took in college was well-organized.Therefore, my college education was well-organized.Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective.

This is distinct from thefallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes from an unusual specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class.

5. Division:This fallacy is committed when it is argued that what is true of a whole must also be true of one of its parts. E.g: Dogs are frequently encountered in streets. Pugs are dogs.Pugs are frequently encountered in streets.

One way to avoid these fallacies is to make clear & careful definition of terms both in meaning and relevance while constructing an argument.