44. Sophistical Refutations and the Fallacy of Equivocation
Summary
Listen to Lecture
Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript
Lecture Notes
Main Topics #
Dialectic and Its Purposes #
- Aristotle identifies three uses of dialectic in the Topics: exercising the mind, meeting someone on their own ground in argument, and finding the beginnings of philosophy
- Dialectic examines the question “whether this is said of that” (utrum hoc de hoc), analyzing whether predication is essential, convertible, a property, or a definition
- Distinction between trustworthy arguments: demonstrations (completely trustworthy), dialectical and rhetorical arguments (trustworthy up to a point), and sophistical refutations (not trustworthy)
The Nature of Refutation #
- A refutation (ἔλεγχος/elenchos) demonstrates that someone contradicts themselves—either directly or by deriving a contradiction from their stated positions
- Real refutation occurs when statements are genuinely inconsistent, as in Socrates’ refutation of the slave boy about doubling a square
- The sophist seeks refutation for victory and glory, treating argument as warfare (“all fair in love and war”), not for truth
- Even admitting three propositions to Socrates can be dangerous: while those three may not directly contradict, two of them together may entail something contradicting the third
Aristotle’s 13 Fallacies #
- Divided into two categories: six from language/words (λόγος) and seven from things (πράγματα)
- Thomas Aquinas references this division in his commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul, where Paul alludes to these two forms of deception
- The most important and common fallacies are equivocation, amphiboly, and composition/division
Key Arguments #
The Fallacy of Equivocation (Ὁμωνυμία) #
Definition and Nature:
- The mistake of mixing up different senses of a single word (name)
- Occurs when people fail to recognize that a word has multiple meanings
- Aristotle identifies this as the most common kind of mistake in thinking
Mechanism of Deception:
- When a word has multiple distinct meanings that people recognize, equivocation is obvious (e.g., “bat” as baseball equipment vs. flying rodent)
- Deception occurs when meanings are subtle or when one doesn’t notice the distinction
- A person wishing to be deceived is easily deceived
Examples Provided:
- The Baseball Bat: “Roger Maris hits 61 homeruns of the bat. The bat is a flying rodent. Therefore, Roger Maris hits 61 homeruns of the flying rodent.”
- Chianti Wine: “Chianti is dry wine. What is dry is not wet. Therefore, Chianti is not wet.” Here “dry” means: (a) opposed to sweet (when describing wine), vs. (b) opposed to wet (when making the predicate claim). The wine is dry in sense (a) but the logical statement treats it as if dry means sense (b).
- Feuerbach’s Deception: “The unlimited is God. Man’s mind is unlimited. Therefore, man’s mind is God.” Here “unlimited” means: (a) God’s actual infinity (possessing all perfections completely), vs. (b) man’s potential infinity (capacity to always learn more, always invent more). The theologians mean sense (a); Feuerbach exploits sense (b) to make a false syllogism. This deceived even Marx and Engels, who embraced Feuerbach’s conclusion that man’s mind is the supreme divinity.
Why Equivocation Is Particularly Deceptive:
- Every respectable word in philosophy is equivocal—it has many meanings
- Aristotle is unique in systematically distinguishing the senses of key philosophical terms
- Thomas Aquinas follows Aristotle in this practice, but modern philosophers often neglect this crucial task
- Failure to distinguish senses of words leads to serious confusion in philosophical conversation
The Second Tool of Dialectic:
- Clarity in conversation serves both to communicate accurately and to avoid the equivocation fallacy
The Fallacy of Amphiboly (Ἀμφιβολία) #
Definition and Nature:
- Similar to equivocation but involves a phrase or speech (λόγος) rather than a single word (ὄνομα)
- A sentence can be parsed or interpreted in multiple ways
Example:
- “The Bible is the word of God. The word of God is the Son of God. Therefore, the Bible is the Son of God.”
- The phrase “word of God” means: (a) the written revelation expressing God’s truth, vs. (b) the Son of God (Christ, the Λόγος)
Important Nuance:
- Unlike pure equivocation, these meanings are actually connected
- Vatican II develops the analogy: just as the Son of God (the Word) became man and took on human flesh, so too the word of God (Scripture) takes on human language to express itself
- The two meanings are related hierarchically: Scripture is chiefly about the Word of God; other biblical books refer back to this central meaning
Parallel Examples of Connected Meanings:
- Philosophy of Nature: “The wisdom of nature is about the wisdom of nature”—meaning both the discipline (philosophy of nature) and its subject matter (the wisdom displayed in nature’s operations), where the former is about the latter
- Wisdom: “Wisdom is the knowledge of God” works in two senses: (a) knowledge about God, (b) the knowledge that God himself possesses. God’s knowledge is chiefly knowledge of God since God knows himself primarily and knows other things only in knowing himself
Important Definitions #
Elenchos (ἔλεγχος) / Refutation: To show that someone contradicts themselves by demonstrating that their statements are mutually inconsistent.
Sophist (Σοφιστής): One who enters into conversation seeking victory and glory rather than truth, willing to use deceptive arguments if they cannot be detected.
Equivocation (Ὁμωνυμία): The fallacy arising from mixing up or failing to distinguish the different senses of a single word.
Amphiboly (Ἀμφιβολία): A fallacy arising from an ambiguous phrase or speech that can be interpreted in multiple ways (literally: “thrown two ways”).
Examples & Illustrations #
The Slave Boy (Plato’s Meno) #
Socrates asks how to double a square. The boy proposes doubling the side. Socrates shows: if side = 2, area = 4. If side is doubled to 4, area = 16 (not 8, which would be double of 4). The boy’s statements contradict: “doubling the side doubles the area” is false. This is a genuine refutation.
Rectangle Contradiction #
Someone claims: length = 10, width = 3, area = 40. From the first two, we derive area = 30, contradicting the third claim. From any two propositions, we deduce something contradicting the third.
The Natural Philosophy Example #
Berquist mentions a sophisticated argument based on equivocation used when teaching the first book of the Physics. He defers discussing it until that reading to see if students can identify the deception.
Feuerbach and Modern Deception #
Feuerbach used the equivocation fallacy to argue that man’s mind is divine, thereby deceiving Marx and Engels. Marx’s doctoral thesis, following Feuerbach, asserts that the human mind is “the supreme divinity” for those who reject theism.
Notable Quotes #
“Aristotle says this is the most common kind of mistake in thinking, the one due to equivocation.”
“Every respectable word in philosophy is equivocal by reason. It has many meanings.”
“The sophist enters into a conversation not with a view to find the truth, but with a view to winning.”
“If you admit 3 things to Socrates, you know, he may have enough to put you in a contradiction.”
“The word of God is about the word of God. The word of God, meaning the philosophy of nature, right, is about the wisdom of nature, the wisdom that nature shows in its operations.”
Questions Addressed #
Q: How can equivocation deceive us even in obvious cases? A: When a word has clearly distinct meanings (like “bat”), the deception is obvious. But when meanings are subtle or interconnected, or when we are not paying careful attention, we fail to notice the shift in meaning and accept a false conclusion that appears to follow.
Q: Why did Aristotle title a work on “sophistical refutations”? A: Because the sophist aims at apparent refutation—making someone appear to contradict themselves—often through deceptive arguments. The work teaches how to recognize and avoid such deceptions.
Q: What is the difference between equivocation and amphiboly? A: Equivocation involves a single word (ὄνομα) with multiple meanings. Amphiboly involves a phrase or complete speech (λόγος) that can be parsed or interpreted in multiple ways.
Q: How does the distinction of senses of words relate to philosophy? A: Aristotle and Thomas systematically distinguish the senses of key philosophical terms to avoid equivocation. This practice is essential to philosophical clarity and is one of the primary tasks of philosophy, though modern philosophers often neglect it.