Fallacies in Reasoning: Equivocation

Its funny how the certain usage of a word or phrase can alter the meaning of one’s intentions – some of us commit the fallacy of equivocation purposely – to f–k with the heads of the people that we are dealing with, or some use it ignorantly, not knowing what they are doing as a result of cultural differences or lack of knowledge. Either way, it may beneficial to be able to identify equivocation as it is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy – it is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It is often confused with amphiboly; however, equivocation is ambiguity arising from the misleading use of a word and amphiboly is ambiguity arising from misleading use of punctuation or syntax. It is evident after I read up on Equivocation, it is evident that this line of reasoning is adopted and embraced by politicians to either twist & persuade their constiuents.

Semantic shift

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as they go in such a way to achieve equivocation by treating distinct meanings of the word as equivalent.
In English language, one equivocation is with the word “man”, which can mean both “member of species Homo sapiens” and “male member of species Homo sapiens”. A well-known equivocation is
“Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks?”
where “man-eating” is taken as “devouring only male human beings”.

Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In this use of equivocation, the word “light” is first used as the opposite of “heavy”, but then used as a synonym of “bright” (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the “middle term” of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed “not heavy”, but is not true that all feathers are “bright”), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.

Metaphor

A separate case of equivocation is metaphor:
All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.
Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of “jackass” to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.

The Vocal Minority

Ringing loudly from a few

A little Abstract: Simply put, minority groups – lifestyles, cultural, racial, were disadvantaged because their concerns went unheard in the general public – primarily due to the availability of distributional channels; back in the day, the only way to really rally, garner support were through newspapers, TV (if you could get the airtime), and word of mouth. In times of social unrest throughout the world, the ‘grassroots’ campaign has been the movement of choice for sparking change and voicing dissent – from the pamphlets that used to be passed around in the dens preceding the Spanish revolution to speak of injustices, to the rallies that started in the deep south in the U.S. circa 1960’s that spread across the nation – it has shown us that the minority, though small, can be very vocal in expressing their dissent.

Enter the digital age with communications passing at lightning speeds; grassroots groups can now quickly spread their message around – gaining members, support, and exposure. The most recent and salient example of this would be Obama’s 2008 U.S. presidential campaign as the mastermind of his campaign utilized the power of social network’s to connect with people; the campaign was able to quickly organize rallies and spread campaign messages to thousands of people instantly. It is said that it is because of Obama’s clever use of grassroots movement ‘mentality’ that lead him to victory in the election – in an election that everyone initially thought he had no chance in winning.

Essentially, most grassroots movements focus around inequity; the imbalance of a system – and the movements try to disrupt and/or change the lifestyle of the majority. Some of the movements I support, but for some …. I don’t know. These movements are very vocal, but their cause – I can’t identify with and/or subscribe, or I just don’t get the logic in how they expressed themselves. There are even full sites that give guides and tutorials on how to start Grassroots sites (click here) with plenty of resources.

The Doubters

No need to explain what doubt is; should be a universal concept as we experience everyday in our lives. Whenever you have an event, or a belief, there will always be two points of view – the Advocators and the Doubters. Let’s examine the Doubters; specifically in the light of substantial empirical evidence. Call them ignorant, believers, or motivationally driven, these people pronounce an opposing stance in the face of adversity; such as those that don’t believe in the moon landing by NASA. Maybe call them the ‘conspirators’ actually, as they cast doubt and mystery behind many of life’s popular events; and they gain traction via social networking sites and mobile technology to amplify their belief.

I only dread as the world gets increasingly smaller with communications, that the world on a whole, will be much louder – get your earmuffs out.

Cheap vs Frugal, pt 2

Examples of the difference

This post expands on the battle between being cheap and frugal – as many of my friends, colleagues have attested that I am cheap. They are categorically wrong. To be cheap means to consciously decide products/services of inferior quality. To be frugal means to be careful in the usage of one’s resources. As to not rehash the first post (click here), I have thought of clear distinguishing examples that will help those that are wrongfully accused of being cheap, when they are actually frugal:

Bringing Outside food/beverages into the Movie Theatres

-Now this is just being smart, $5 for a bag of popcorn?!? $3 for a bag of candy?!? Bringing in your own treats from the dollar store does not only save you money, but is being a smart consumer.

Buying No Name Brands vs Brand Names

- In some cases the difference is minimal, and if you can’t distinguish the difference, then it makes no sense to spend an extra few cents to a dollar just to have a ‘name brand’; specifically I am referring to grocery items. However, if you do have a general disdain and find the products of no name products to lack a certain taste/quality than a brand name – then sure, go ahead and go for the name brand. But choosing an equally comparative brand is not cheap, it is being frugal.

Event Parking

- I live in Toronto, where they like to charge enormous amounts of money for parking in the downtown core – many big cities have a similar and worse situation. So what is walking a few blocks to your event if it is going to save you money in the long run? That $15 flat rate parking is only a cost for easy convenience; while the $5 parking lot down the street or the free parking (a few more blocks away) will make you do something that you should already be doing – exercise! Get your ‘walk on’ and save a few bucks, be frugal, don’t waste your money.

Be Frugal NOT Cheap! Like moi!

.:: LiBM ::.

Buy Yourself a Personality: Gucci

Another installment in the series of ‘Buying Yourself a Personality’, which is a quick way for one to absorb a personality via the purchase of certain items; in this series, we focus on the popular high-end luxury brand Gucci.  Essentially, Gucci is a ridiculously priced luxury fashion line that makes everything from handbags, purses, suits, pants, and other items.  Its distinctive pattern is world renowned and easy to recognize – which has been problematic for Gucci as now it has to deal with bootlegging and the black market of its products.  It is estimated that the bootlegging of Gucci nets close to $500 million dollars annually.  Gucci has a crack team of lawyers to pursue the bootleggers, but they are far outnumbered.

Anyhow, it is important to note that Gucci is only found in high-end retail stores – so if you are buying a Gucci shirt at the local swap meet or flea market, and you are paying close to a $100 for it, you are being ripped off.  Or, you are buying it to fill a need to be seen as ‘wealthy’ and/or one with a high SES.  You are doing it to seem ‘cool’, to fill some void.  But, you got to realize that this is not the answer – spend your money wisely, please.  Especially to my black people who go to some crazy and extraodinary lengths to don Gucci attire.  Some even are so crazy with it that they outfit their whole vehicle with Gucci lining and upholstery.  I guess when you have some money, no financial planner, you can really do some stupid things – primarily the things that do nothing to raise the value in your assets.  With that said, here are some ridiculous Gucci designs.

Some people will pay hundreds, even thousands of dollars for just the Gucci fabric – which people, is just a flipping pattern! But, maybe I shouldn’t get all ‘bent out of shape’, as they are buying more than just a cheap fabric made in China, lol.

Rhetoric Redundancy

The common usage of tautologies in everyday language

In rhetoric, a tautology is an unnecessary or unessential (and sometimes unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages). It is often regarded or thought of as a fault of style and was defined by Fowler as “saying the same thing twice.” It is not apparently necessary or essential for the entire meaning of a phrase to be repeated. If a part of the meaning is repeated in such a way that it appears as unintentional, clumsy, or lacking in dexterity, then it may be described as tautology. On the other hand, a repetition of meaning which improves the style of a piece of speech or writing is not necessarily described as tautology.

“Unsolved Mystery”

- “mystery” is something that is unexplained, unknown or unsolved.

“Short Summary”

- a “summary” is a “shortened” version of a text

“Free Gift”

- “gift” is, by definition, something given without charge.

“New Innovation”

- “innovation” is defined as something new.

“digital download”

- given that downloading is the transfer of binary or digital data from a higher level system to a lower one, all downloading is inherently digital.

Hamilton Tiger-Cats

The name of the CFL’s Hamilton Tiger-Cats is tautological, since tigers are cats

Common Acronymns that are Tautologies:

UPC code (Universal Price Code)
VIN number (Vehicle Identification Number)
ISBN number (International Standard Book Number)

Some Tautological quotes:

In a 1988 campaign speech in Ohio, George H. W. Bush said, “It’s no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go one way or another

After reading up on Tautologies, I asked myself if I did this, and I believe I am a repeat offender of this. But why do we commit to these rhetorical statements? Its either due to ignorance – not knowing the true literal meaning of certain words and/or phrases; or it could be due to a desire to sound ‘witty’ and intelligent – the more words used implies a greater depth of vocabulary and knowledge. Whatever the reason is, if you are a tautological offender, stop and think about what and why you are doing it, because you may be being redundant for no apparent reason.

Sources:
Wikipedia