Equivocation and Not Paying Attention
The Equivocation fallacy is referring to ‘the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument’. In this sense, within a single argument, two different meanings of the same word are used, thus confusing the larger idea or serving as a linguistic crutch for the argument being made. Here’s an example:
“Sure philosophy helps you argue [debate over a given topic] better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue [verbally aggress one another]? There’s enough hostility in this world.”
There is something to note regarding this example and most if not all instances of equivocation found in discussions: The argument is not affected in any way. The flaw is purely semantic. I assume most of us have had at least once that discussion where someone had an incredibly incorrect way of perceiving and reformulating our opinion, as if they would strawman it. Except that’s an uncharitable way of viewing the situation. Someone may have a poor understanding of another person’s argument because of a linguistic/semantic error. What you may understand as ‘Knowledge’ may not align with what I understand as ‘Knowledge’, and you can see that for yourself in my previous articles. Most often then not, debates are put to a halt because of inheret misunderstandings and misinterpretings of language. And this is where, as I have done many times, begin to defend a logical fallacy.
While there certainly are people who will take advantage of this inability to understand language, it is insulting as a listener to claim that it is simply too big of a task for you to identify this issue alone, and thus need a specialized fallacy category. This is an argument I make most often: That people have an unjustified need to hide behind extra terminology to shoot the opponent with every time they do something which is described by that new term. Responsibility in arguments does no longer exist; there are only rules and guidelines that may protect us during this journey, and if they won’t, we shall cry wolf.
Most arguments suffering from equivocation can be very simply reconstituted by the reformulation of the sentence. Take the example I gave above and replace the word ‘argue’ with the text in the square brackets. Does the argument seem unreasonable now? What you’re also encouraged to do is actively ask your opponent to rephrase, or to explain what he is saying. That is, actually taking responsibility for the way you engage in the conversation. In the alternative scenario, you cry ‘equivocation fallacy’, both of you ramble and make the debate more aggressive as a result, and leave it without any results. Logical fallacies are cool until you realize they are only good for proving people guilty in court of law, not holding sincere individual discussions.
When you are faced with a sentence, a word, a concept, or a point of reference you do not fully understand in the moment, do ask for clarification. Words evolve, and their evolution is both in a cultural level and an individual level. To make sure these factors do not sidetrack an important discussion, get the opponent’s definition, maybe argue with it in order to find common ground, then move on. Furthermore, you are encouraged to make equivocations and linguistic twists when you are able, as to test your opponent. You may find two unappealing situations: 1. You will be pressed on the use of a word, and the entire discussion will shift in this direction, case in which you’ve done something equivalent to proving gravity — Pointing out the obvious. And 2. The opponent will ignore this, and, possibly, will reach a similar linguistic error to the one in the 1st situation as a result of not understanding what you said. These results help you identify a lazy audience, something we’ll be introducing with this article.
I’ve decided to address the obvious in the very end: Is it the fault of the speaker when an equivocation confuses a debate? No. He is at fault either for trying to take advantage of the listener(s) or expressing himself poorly. But if this error leads to the larger roadblock of the general discussion, that blame falls onto a lazy audience. Being gullible is not a medical condition. The lazy audience will come back later as well for other topics, but what’s important about them now is that they’re the people who rely on already-existing terminology and strategy to dictate how they live and act. In the case of arguing, the lazy audience cannot identify or clarify an error as long as it’s not a documented logical fallacy, and cannot identify specifics and context unless they’re detailed in said logical fallacies. They generalize what they know and ignore what they don’t, which makes them the perfect target for such weak arguing.
You should not feel pressure to counter everything you hear when arguing, but you should feel pressure to pay attention. Your opponent is trying to offer you a perspective, and before you engage with it, you must make sure you understand it as is within your ability. If you spot an equivocation, ask for a rephrase. It’s that simple.
