New vid: argument from ignorance explained through mining

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd say the equivocation fallacy isn't one you usually typically spot a theist using,

But when it comes to theist apologists who obfuscate and confuse, with all their disingenuousness, the equivocation fallacy is pretty much implicit in a great deal of their arguments.

I think it's an important one to know about.

He's the Wikipedia and Rational Wik on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation

Never read about it on Rational Wiki before actually, I just searched for it because I assumed it must have some. Interesting summary of it here:

Equivocation (or doublespeak) is a logical fallacy that relies on the different meanings a word can have in different contexts.
It is a favorite fallacy of creationist and woo hucksters alike. It can be used both to seemingly belittle a concept or idea, or to raise one up to false pretenses. It can be used to disguise bullshit like in quantum woo where people like Deepak Chopra use equivocation to make their ideas sound like they have some basis in reality.
Equivocation is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, although its parent fallacy, the four-term fallacy, is a formal fallacy.

(my bolding)

Never even heard of the "four-term fallacy", it's clearly a major fallacy because it's a formal one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms

Interesting.

In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation: using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time, creating a fourth term even though only three distinct words are used:

Major premise: Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Minor premise: A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
Conclusion: A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.