RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
January 17, 2017 at 11:50 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2017 at 12:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)
In my experience, when people equivocate, they don't do so intentionally. They honestly don't understand or see that they are conflating separate concepts called, by some or by them, by the same term. Leading to the inevitable "No I'm not!" response to having their comments identified as such.
You're probably better off checking sources specific to philosophy to understand the meaning of a fallacy, as the dictionary is, nine of ten times, giving you the conversational connotations.
It's the first fallacy listed, and for good reason, lol. An example from this thread would include questions as to whether "I" am sitting in my chair gaming..or "I" am pieing the corner with an AWP about to hs a noob near a statue. "I" has been equivocated upon. One of them is true, the other is not - not even "true in context"...it's not even accurate. This is why using the two examples to establish varying truths in context, or simultaneously true but contradictory statements (paradox) fails. If we agree upon the subject of I (is it me, or my ingame avatar) what may seem to be a disparity vanishes...and if we examine the phenomenon of a video game, we find that there is no corner, no statue, just arrays of lit bits. A more comprehensive refutation of a conflation between the two can hardly be imagined. Not only is the equivocation invalid, as all equivocations are, it also rests on unsound premises.
You're probably better off checking sources specific to philosophy to understand the meaning of a fallacy, as the dictionary is, nine of ten times, giving you the conversational connotations.
Quote:1. The fallacy of equivocation is an argument which exploits the ambiguity of a term or phrase which has occurred at least twice in an argument, such that on the first occurrence it has one meaning and on the second another meaning.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
It's the first fallacy listed, and for good reason, lol. An example from this thread would include questions as to whether "I" am sitting in my chair gaming..or "I" am pieing the corner with an AWP about to hs a noob near a statue. "I" has been equivocated upon. One of them is true, the other is not - not even "true in context"...it's not even accurate. This is why using the two examples to establish varying truths in context, or simultaneously true but contradictory statements (paradox) fails. If we agree upon the subject of I (is it me, or my ingame avatar) what may seem to be a disparity vanishes...and if we examine the phenomenon of a video game, we find that there is no corner, no statue, just arrays of lit bits. A more comprehensive refutation of a conflation between the two can hardly be imagined. Not only is the equivocation invalid, as all equivocations are, it also rests on unsound premises.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
