6. FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE. (Equivocation.)

These are the fallacies of double meaning. It is known that an equivocal term is one which permits two or more interpretations; similarly a proposition which admits of two or more interpretations may be denominated equivocal. Thus the term equivocation has come to stand for all errors in language resulting from a possibility of more than one interpretation. This justifies the position of referring to all of the six fallacies in language as fallacies also of equivocation.

(1) Ambiguous middle.

Ambiguous middle explains itself. It is the fallacy of giving to the middle term a double meaning. In form the argument may contain but three terms, yet in meaning there are in reality four terms. For this reason ambiguous middle and the fallacy of four terms appear to be about one and the same thing; but in this treatment we shall regard them as mutually exclusive, and this is the distinction:

Invalid arguments of “ambiguous middle” have only three terms in form but four terms in meaning. This signifies that the middle term though identical in form is given a double meaning.

Invalid arguments of “four terms” always have four terms in both form and meaning; they are “logical quadrupeds” in every sense of the word.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

Ambiguous middle.

(a) “Necessity is the mother of invention,”

Bread is a necessity,

∴ Bread is the mother of invention.

(b) “Nothing is better than wisdom,”

Dry bread is better than nothing,

∴ Dry bread is better than wisdom.

A slate roof is good for a church,

∴ A slate roof is a force for good in any community.

Fallacies of four terms.

(a) All true teachers are just,

John Doe is an educator,

∴ John Doe is just.

(b) Milk is nourishing,

This substance is a white fluid,

∴ This substance is nourishing.

This man has taken what does not belong to him,

∴ This man should be imprisoned.

In the “four-term” fallacies, observe that the four terms occur in the premises. When a fourth term is introduced in the conclusion, the material fallacy of non sequitur has been committed.

(2) Amphibology (or amphiboly).

Amphibology is a fallacy resulting from an ambiguousproposition rather than from the ambiguity of any particular term. The fallacy of amphibology is committed when the spoken or written proposition conveys more than one meaning. The ancient oracles indulged in this sort of fallacy, the reason for such indulgence being obvious; the oracles were not too positive as to the outcome of their prognostications, and therefore were especially careful to cover every emergency.

A careless use of relative clauses and prepositional phrases often results in the fallacy of amphibology.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FALLACY OF AMPHIBOLOGY.

(a) “You the enemy will slay.”

(b) “The Duke yet lives that Henry shall depose.”

(d) “You your father will punish.”

(3) Accent.

This fallacy springs from placing undue emphasis on some word or group of words. Naturally such accentuation may convey a meaning entirely foreign to the author’s intent. Newspapers are guilty of this fallacy when they select a few words from a speech and use them as headlines without further explanation. A politician may quote a sentence uttered by an opponent and fail to relate it to what preceded or followed. A cartoonist may arouse the prejudice of public opinion by giving ridiculous emphasis to some idiosyncracy possessed by the subject of his attack.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FALLACIES OF ACCENT.

(a) “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

By giving undue emphasis to neighbor, the notion is clearly conveyed that one may bear false witness against all who are not neighbors.

(b) “You must not crib when taking my examinations.”

“I may say, as a side remark, that the labor unions are guilty of developing a nation of shirks, when they prohibit a phenomenally efficient workman from doing his best.” “I do not wish to be misunderstood in this.” “I believe in labor unions but in this particular they are dead wrong.”

What the newspaper reported.

(Headline) “The Labor Union Scored as a Training School for Shirks.” “———— said in his speech in ———— Hall that the Union was responsible for the development of a nation of shirks.” “A good man,” said he, “is not permitted to do his best work.”

(4) Composition.

The fallacy of composition is committed when it is assumed that what is true distributively is likewise true collectively. A term is used in a distributive sense when it is applied to each individual of the class; whereas a term is used in a collective sense when it is applied to the class considered as one whole. “All” meaning each one considered separately and “all” meaning the whole furnishes a frequent pitfall for this fallacy.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION.

(a) “Every member of the team is a star player; hence I expect that the entire aggregation will be a winner.”

(b) “All the men of the jury are fair minded; therefore we have good reason for supposing that the jury’s verdict will be in accord with the rules of justice.”

(c) “Thirteen and twenty-three are odd numbers; thirty-six is equal to thirteen and twenty-three; hence thirty-six is an odd number.”

(d) “All the angles of a triangle are less than two right angles; hence the angles X, Y and Z are less than two right angles.”

(e) In governmental affairs the assumption, that a law which benefits one section will benefit all, is a fallacy of composition.

(5) Division.

The fallacy of division is committed when it is assumed that what is true collectively is true distributively. Division is the converse of composition. Composition is a fallacious procedure from a distributive to a collective use; while division is a fallacious procedure from a collective to a distributive use. The fallacy of division may be illustrated by giving the converse of the illustrations under composition:

(a) “The team is a star playing team; and since Smith is the ‘first baseman’ of the team, he must be a star player.”

(b) “The jury rendered a just decision; hence the foreman is a fair minded man.”

Nine and twenty-eight are thirty-seven,

∴ Nine and twenty-eight are odd numbers.

(d) All the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles,

A is an angle of a triangle,

∴ A is equal to two right angles.

(6) Figure of Speech.

This fallacy results from assuming that words of the same root have the same meaning. Since the same root-word may be used as a noun, verb, adjective, etc., it does not follow that in these various forms it retains a common meaning. “Address” as a noun and “address” as a verb convey two distinct meanings.

The following are examples of this fallacy:

(a) No designing person should be trusted,

This architect is a designer,

∴ This architect should not be trusted.

(b) Justifiable investigation is wise,

This man is a just investigator,

∴ This man is wise.

These fallacies are not classed as those of “four terms” because two terms so closely resemble each other in form, and yet they are not fallacies of ambiguous middle; since the middle terms are not identical in form.