Topic: Ambiguity
Confusion can arise if a word, phrase or position has more than one meaning and this is not made clear.
| Fallacy | Trigger – look for … |
|---|---|
| Etymological fallacy | A word’s original or etymological meaning is treated as authoritative for its current use – or its modern meaning is projected back onto older usage – even though the term’s meaning has shifted over time. |
| Motte-and-bailey fallacy | A strong and a weak version of a position are conflated under one term, and arguments are moved between them as if they were the same claim – e.g., retreating from an attacked strong claim to a defensible weak one without acknowledging the switch. |
| Generic generalization | An unquantified generic statement (“Xs are Y”) is used in an argument as if it were a universal claim about every member of the class – or a universal claim is silently weakened to dodge counterexamples. |
| Syntactic ambiguity | A sentence’s grammatical structure allows two or more readings with different meanings, and the argument depends on one of them (e.g., ambiguous attachment, scope, or reference). If the ambiguity is specifically an unquantified “Xs are Y” statement, use Generic generalization. |
| Intensional fallacy | A term is swapped for another co-referring term referring to the same object, even though the two terms carry different associated meanings or modes of reference (e.g., “morning star” vs. “evening star”). |
#END.