Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Aims
Distinguish ambiguity and vagueness. Introduce the informal fallacies of clarity and the fallacy of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Introduce a few conditions for good definitions.
Vagueness
A term is vague just in case there are cases in which it is unclear whether or not the term applies. Some term is vague because there are borderline areas in a continuum, where it is unclear whether or not the term applies. E.g., little, close, new, young, fat, wealthy, thick and many color terms. Take young. Teenagers are young. 50 year-old men are not young. But are 30 year-old men young? Other term is vague because there are several criteria for application of the term with no standard of how many of the criteria need be fulfilled and to what degree. E.g., philosophy, religious (person), resident, adult and tree.
attending services; belief in a supernatural being; membership in an organized religion; adoption of a set of values upheld by a religion; performance of acts of devotion or piety; and, a sense of reverence (toward, e.g., living things or the universe).
It is unclear whether the term religious is applicable to someone who fulfills only some of the criteria just to some extent. This fact makes the term religious vague.
lie as a verb to mean being in a horizontal position and not standing or sitting; and lie as a verb to mean saying something which he or she knows is untrue. (The ambiguity of a term is often used in jokes.)
In order to have the audience understand and evaluate the argument properly, the arguer should make clear which meaning of an ambiguous term he or she is using.
The guard, and prisoners who refused to join in the prison break, were tied.
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the seeming plausibility of an argument depends on a word or phrase having two distinct meanings. Examples: Any law can be repealed by the legislative authority. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the legislative authority. No child should work. Every person is a child of someone. Therefore, no one should work.
Caution
Is the following argument a fallacy? A building of Chase Bank stands on the bank of Duck Lake. Therefore, there is a building of a bank on the bank of Duck Lake. This argument uses one expression bank in two ways, but it is not a case of the fallacy of equivocation. Merely using one expression in more than one way in an argument does NOT constitute the fallacy of equivocation.
Caution (Continued)
For an argument to be a case of the fallacy of equivocation, its apparent plausibility must depend on using one phrase in more than one way.
The argument in the last page really establishes the conclusion, and its plausibility does not depend on the ambiguity of an expression bank. Therefore, it is not a case of the fallacy of equivocation.
In the fallacy of equivocation, if an ambiguous expression in premises is understood in one and the same way throughout, some premise either fails to support the intended conclusion or turns out to be dubious. (Check the examples.)
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the seeming plausibility of an argument depends on an ambiguity in the grammatical structure of a sentence.
Examples: Rural people call the evening meal supper and urban people dinner. Therefore, we must arrest those rural people for cannibalism before they eat up any more urban people. This contract says that the builders expect the sum of $500.00 before and after the completion of the project. So, well give them $50 before they start and $450.00 after the project is completed.
If James is going to kill Smith, James should kill him gently. James, an assassin, is going to kill Smith. Therefore, James should kill Smith gently. The 1st sentence is true only if it means It should be the case that if James is going to kill Smith, James kills him gently. (wider scope) This premise combined with James is going to kill Smith does not entail that James should kill Smith gently.
Auxiliary
verbs like can, must, ought, should, have to etc. can take narrower or wider scope.
Continued
Everyone loves someone. So, someone is loved by everyone. The 1st sentence is true only if it means For everyone, there is someone he or she loves. Everyone takes wider scope, someone takes narrower scope. But the 2nd sentence means There is someone everyone loves. Someone takes wider scope, everyone takes narrower scope. Quantifiers like every, all, some, none, only etc. can take narrower or wider scope.
Caution
Merely containing a grammatically ambiguous sentence does not constitute the fallacy of amphiboly. Distinguish amphiboly (as a type of ambiguity); and, the fallacy of amphiboly as a fallacious argument based on amphiboly. For an argument to be a case of the fallacy of amphiboly, its seeming plausibility must depend on ambiguity in grammatical structure of the sentence(s). In the fallacy of amphiboly, if the grammatical structure of premises is interpreted in one and the same way throughout, some premise either fails to support the intended conclusion or turns out to be dubious.
A Role of Definition
Because many words and phrases are ambiguous and value, we often need to define them to make an argument clearly understood. There are several criteria for good definitions. We will study some of them below.
First, a definition should not be circular. A problematic example: Full-time student means a person who is enrolled full time in school. Such a definition do little to convey what a phrase means. Second, a definition should not prejudge an empirical, evaluative, or philosophical question. A problematic example: Vitamin C is a compound found in citrus fruits and green vegetables and can prevent you from getting cold. Another problematic case: Abortion means the justified killing of a non-person in a womans womb. You cannot make your empirical, evaluative or philosophical view true by definition. You need reasons to show that your views are correct.
3. A definition should provide a necessary and sufficient condition of what you mean.
If you cannot give such a definition, you should explicitly state that you are not trying to give one. To understand this requirement, you need to know the distinction between a necessary condition, a sufficient condition, and a necessary and sufficient condition. Let me explain the distinction.
Necessary vs Sufficient
A B
Being
is a necessary and sufficient condition for Y if and only if X is both a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. i.e., both X must occur in order for Y to occur, and Y must occur in order for X to occur X and Y must go together on every occasion.
Bird
fly What is wrong with this definition? Bird then does not apply to penguins, kiwis, ostriches, and cassowaries. This means that the definition fails to state a necessary condition for being a bird.
Summary
1.
2.
3.
A definition should not be unnecessarily unclear or hard to understand. A definition should not beg the question: A definition should not be circular; and, A definition should not prejudge an empirical, evaluative, or philosophical question. A definition should provide a necessary and sufficient condition of what you mean.
If you cannot give such a definition, you should explicitly state that you are not trying to give one.
This fallacy is committed when apparent plausibility of an argument depends on confusing a necessary condition and a sufficient condition.
Examples
Donna, you said if I wanted to bake a good, light souffl, I had to use fresh eggs. Thats exactly what I did. But my souffl was heavy and tasteless. I ruined my dinner party. Ill never listen to you again. Professor, you said that I will not get an A in the course unless I get an A on the final. And thats exactly what I did. So, you lied. You gave me a B. Im going to protest this.
Exercise on p.24