| Ambiguous Assertion |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Ambiguous Assertion
|
Logical Fallacy of Ambiguous AssertionAmbiguous assertion is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The Logical Fallacy of Ambiguous Assertion occurs when claims are sufficiently vague as to allow more than one interpretation. Sometimes, statements are so vague the audience is forced to guess what was meant. As with all fallacies, this may be a calculated technique or an error in communication, but the result is that some people may be influenced to believe something that isn’t true. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Ambiguous Assertion
The vagueness of this statement, “not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another,” makes it difficult to answer. Bill is using innuendo rather that stating things clearly. This results in a fallacy of ambiguity. Innuendo is often used as a hedging tactic by people who don't have a real reason to believe what they believe. What is meant by “fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another”?
There is a lot of mixing of fossils. Is Bill just plain lying? If you were to ask, he could easily modify or redefine his terms in such a way that they would not be a lie--but the statement would then make no point at all.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAmbiguity Barnum Effect Innuendo Sly Suggestion Syntactic Ambiguity Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy Shingle Speech Use-Mention Error Double Entendre Misuse of Etymology Garden Path Ambiguity Squinting Modifier Quantifier Shift Illicit Observation Metaphorical Ambiguity Euphemism Equivocation Redefinition Middle Puzzle Part Idiosyncratic Language Type-Token Ambiguity Misconditionalization Modal Scope Fallacy Scope Fallacy Ambiguous Middle Hypnotic Bait and Switch Definist Fallacy Defining a Word in Terms of Itself Socratic Fallacy Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Persuasive Definition Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Nominalization Inference from a Label Pigeonholing Fallacy Category Mistake Conjunction Fallacy Disjunction Fallacy Information Overload Proof by Verbosity Argument by Gibberish Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety Type-Token Ambiguity Conceptual Fallacy Mistaking an Entity for a Theory Butterfly Logic Process-Product Ambiguity Recently Viewed |
