III. AMBIGUITY

1
III. AMBIGUITY
2
AMBIGUITY

• These fallacies have statements that are either
  purposefully or accidentally ambiguous,
  misleading, or confusing.
• Their problem often lies with LANGUAGE
• grammar
• punctuation
• diction
• syntax
• Manipulation of language to mislead.

3
AMBIGUITY

• 1) AMPHIBOLY
• Latin for ambiguous
• ambiguous, multiple meanings or interpretations
• caused by Bad Grammar
• misplaced modifiers, poor pronoun reference
• misleading statistics
• percentages 80 sounds like much, but not if
  only 5 people were asked
• (also spelled amphibole)

4
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES of AMPHIBOLY
• Her parents watered the flowers, yet they died.
  (confusing PN reference)
• Sam gave Bob his baseball glove. (confusing PN
  reference)
• I shot a bear in my pajamas. (misplaced
  modifier)
• March moved to June.
• Girls slip seen by many.
• 4 out of 5 dentists prefer Trident. (80, only
  5)

5
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES of AMPHIBOLY
• Blind Bishop Appointed to See
• Patient at Death's Door Doctors Pull Him
  Through
• Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
• Lawyers Give Poor Free Legal Advice
• Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant
• Autos Killing 110 a Day Let's Resolve to Do
  Better
• Collegians are Turning to Vegetables

6
AMBIGUITY

• 2) BEGGING the QUESTION
• circular reasoning
• circulus in demonstrando or petitio principii
• To use the Toulmin Method to explain
• someone makes a Claim but offers no Grounds,
• rephrasing the Claim and using it as proof.

7
AMBIGUITY

• 2) BEGGING the QUESTION
• In terms of a syllogism, the Conclusion is used
  (rephrased) as either the Major Premise or the
  Minor Premise.
• In terms of assumptions, the person is assuming
  what is to be proven in order to prove it.
• no why no reasons, explanations, stats or
  facts, Logos, grounds, proof, support, definition
  of vague terms or subjective values or meanings
• the 1st sentence (claim) is the same as the last
  (conclusion)
• vice-versa sometimes these statements can be
  reversed

8
AMBIGUITY

• 2) BEGGING the QUESTION
• from The Skeptics Dictionary
• An argument is a form of reasoning whereby one
  gives a reason
• or reasons in support of some claim. The reasons
  are called premises and the claim one tries to
  support with them is called the conclusion.
• If one's premises entail one's conclusion, and
  one's premises are questionable, one is said to
  beg the question.

9
AMBIGUITY

• 2) BEGGING the QUESTION
• EX
• Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human
  being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal.
  So abortion should be illegal.
• The conclusion of the argument is entailed in its
  premises. If one assumes that abortion is murder
  then it follows that abortion should be illegal
  because murder is illegal. Thus, the arguer is
  assuming abortion should be illegal (the
  conclusion) by assuming that it is murder. In
  this argument, the arguer should not be granted
  the assumption that abortion is murder, but
  should be made to provide support for this claim.

10
AMBIGUITY

• 2) BEGGING the QUESTION
• avoidance, non-responsiveness
• restating the premise without answering the
  question
• circular reasoning turns the question around
  without answering it
• uses what is trying to be proved as part of the
  proof the proposition appears in the
  syllogism/proof

11
AMBIGUITY

• 2) BEGGING the QUESTION
• NOT
• not raising the question
• not leading to more questions
• BUT
• begging as in to take for granted without
  basis or justification a statement that begs the
  very point we're disputing (dictionary.com)
• 6. To take for granted without warrant esp. in
  to beg the question to take for granted the
  matter in dispute, to assume without proof (OED,
  emphasis mine)

12
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES
• Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling
  the truth.
• I know my friend is reliable because I trust him.
• Im a good person because Im moral.
• vice-versa
• notice how these fallacious statements can be
  reversed
• Im moral because Im a good person.
• Proof/Grounds restatement of the Premise/Claim

13
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES (contd)
• The ____ has the right to X
• (fetus, women, gays, citizens, )
• Is it in fact a right? Not a privilege or duty or
  custom, something not a law?
• Assumes that others must allow you, are obliged
  to allow you X.

14
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES (contd)
• Why is theft illegal? Theft is illegal because if
  it wasn't then it wouldn't be against the law.
• No why, no proof, no Logos, no facts, stats,
  reasons
• "it's against the law because it's against the
  law"
• so the conclusion (that theft is illegal) is used
  to answer the question ("why is theft illegal?").

15
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES (contd)
• When is a fetus a person?
• This question, in fact, has begged the question
  in that it assumes that a fetus is actually
  considered a person.
• When it is no longer a fetus. When the doctor
  says so. When it has the attributes of a person.
  --- When is that exactly?

16
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES (contd)
• Syllogism It is wrong to kill innocent human
  beings. Fetuses are innocent human beings. Thus,
  aborting fetuses is wrong.
• does not define the vague term innocent
• assumes a fetus is considered a human being
• assumes it is wrong to kill

17
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES (contd)
• Marijuana is illegal in all states. And we know
  we shouldnt violate the law. Since smoking
  marijuana is illegal, we shouldnt smoke it.
  Since we shouldnt smoke marijuana, it is the
  duty of the government to stop people from
  smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal.
• Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold
  government office. Hence any government official
  who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his
  job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to
  hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail.
  Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold
  government office.

18
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES (contd)
• Petitio principii The Bible is the word of
  God. The word of God cannot be doubted, and the
  Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore
  the Bible must be true.

19
AMBIGUITY

• 3) EQUIVOCATION
• quibble on the meaning of word/s
• a deliberate tactic to delay, distort, clutter,
  or avoid issue
• trivial distinctions euphemisms misuse of
  definitions

20
AMBIGUITY

• 3) EQUIVOCATION
• obfuscates, obscures the real issue
• I didnt steal your money I merely borrowed
  it.
• The issue is not about if you stole or
  borrowed, but that you took the item without
  asking permission.

21
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES of EQUIVOCATION
• That depends on what your definition of is
  is. (Bill Clinton)
• Im not a terrorist Im a freedom fighter.
• Im not an illegal immigrant Im a refugee.
• Im not a communist, but a Marxist.
• Knock, knock! Who's there, in the other
  devil'sname? Faith, here's an equivocator, that
  couldswear in both the scales against either
  scale     who committed treason enough for
  God's sake,yet could not equivocate to heaven
  O, comein, equivocator. (from Macbeth 2.3.8-13)

22
AMBIGUITY

• 4) LOADED LANGUAGE
• words explode with meaning
• words emotive, evocative, prejudicial, biased,
  inflammatory
• heavy reliance on connotation inference
• remember, inference and implication are not
  fact
• hinting , suggesting, implying, evoking,
  alluding, insinuating
• part of the subtle psychology of argument
• indirectly, covertly bringing something to mind

23
AMBIGUITY

• 4) LOADED LANGUAGE
• Why is this fallacious?
• it offers suggestive words instead of support,
  facts, evidence
• it expresses value judgments (claims) without
  offering proof (grounds)
• (thus) it leads the audience to unwarranted
  conclusions
• it uses emotionally charged words in place of
  reasoning, argument
• it is manipulative

24
AMBIGUITY

• 4) LOADED LANGUAGE
• similar to other fallacies
• BTQ both fail to meet the burden of proof (no
  grounds)
• Amphiboly, Equivocation fallacies of language,
  abuse of language
• Ad Misericordiam manipulative use of emotion
• used in other fallacies
• Ad Hominem, Fallacy of Opposition, Genetic
  Fallacy, OG
• Ad Misericordiam, ad Populum, PF/SA, Straw Man,
  GBA
• False Analogy, False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, Red
  Herring

25
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES of LOADED LANGUAGE
• users motives
• they dont want to consider the issue theyve
  already made up their minds
• they are trying to sway without proof
• leading questions or statements, the answer to
  which is foregone, misleading, or damning
• questions that are more like statements
• editorials posing as news reports
• propaganda, innuendo
• sarcasm irony ambiguity (so avoid using
  either)
• thinskinny, overweightfat, soldierterrorist,
  plant-weed

26
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES of LOADED LANGUAGE
• Do I have to research any more junk on this
  stupid topic for this worthless class?
• Concerning the inexperienced Presidents hasty,
  subvert, and ill-considered appointment of such
  an incompetent and unproven judge, is this the
  type of underhanded, thoughtless behavior we can
  expect from this administration?
• Have you stopped beating your wife?

27
AMBIGUITY

• 5) FALSE ANALOGY
• false relationship, false comparison
• false impression
• more differences between the 2 than similarities
• (despite few superficial similarities)
• dig more and find that not related
• collapse when examined critically (difficult to
  use)
• exaggerations

28
AMBIGUITY

• DESCRIPTIVE vs. EXPLANATORY
• DESCRIPTIVE metaphorical, more colorful than
  precise, remain dissimilar, short cuts, not
  enough to support your claim
• life is a bowl of cherries
• Malcolm X, criticizing the participation of
  whites in the 1962 march on Washington, DC Its
  like when youve got some coffee thats too
  black, which means that its too strong. What do
  you do? You integrate it with cream, you make it
  weak. But if you pour too much cream in it, you
  wont even know you ever had coffee.
• Claim integration of whites blacks in the
  march weakened the black movement for rights
  jobs.
• Support putting white cream into black coffee
  weakens the coffee.
• Warrant weakening coffee with cream is
  analogous to weakening the black rights movement
  by allowing white people to participate.
• Vivid descriptive, but not convincing. Too many
  dissimilarities. Strong and weak need to be
  defined. No facts, no proof, just racist opinion.

29
AMBIGUITY

• DESCRIPTIVE vs. EXPLANATORY
• EXPLANATORY more than imagery offer facts,
  proof
• In a world of nuclear overkill and redundance,
  the United States and the Soviet Union are like
  two rivals locked in a small room in a duel to
  the death where one has 1,400 pistols and the
  other 1,200. The one with 1,400 has no advantage
  when one or both of the parties are likely to be
  killed or maimed with the first pistol shot.
• Claim In enlarging their nuclear arsenals, the
  US and the USSR are engaged in a duel that
  neither can win.
• Support A duelist in a locked room with 1,400
  pistols could probably not win against a duelist
  with 1,200 pistols.
• Warrant A pistol duel is analogous to the
  nuclear arms rivalry between the US and the USSR.
  (still some dissimilarities)

30
AMBIGUITY

• EXAMPLES of FALSE ANALOGY
• The Patriot Act turns our government into
  another Reich.
• Bush and Hitler
• 9/11 and Pearl Harbor
• Vietnam and Iraq 2003

31
ENDPART 3C