Talk:Equivocation

message: Margarine is better than nothing
Nothing is better than butter
Therefore margarine is better than butter 
I have to say that the above passage is logical and correct: Margarine > Nothing > Butter
: Wrong.
It's that simple. I don't see equivocation in it.
: Sorry to hear it. Because if nothing is better than butter, that includes margerine.
Whoever wrote this passage was a fool, because he or she was using enthymatic language: Implied bread was in the equation. I like to use butter in my skillet instead of margarine.
: Your reasoning as to who is a fool is fallacious.
-------
How about this one?  
Libraries contain books, and books contain knowledge.  Knowledge is power and power is energy.  Energy, frozen in one place, becomes mass.  Too much mass in one place creates a black hole.  Therefore The Library of Congress should be a black hole!  (maybe that is why Wikipedia is gaining popularity, nobody can get anything useful out of the Library of Congress!) - KeyStroke
----
: I'm not quite sure how an amphiboly is related to syntax, so I removed that reference. Lucidish 21:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Could someone add a few more words to the intro to explain what this is actually about? Is it used in logical deduction, writing, philosophy? Stevage 11:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleared up. Said it was logical fallacy. Logic, however, is used in writing and philosophy anyway. Lucidish 05:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: According to Malloch (1966), the source of the doctrine of equivocation was a short treatise, in cap. Humanae aures, that had been written by Martin Azpilcueta (a.k.a. Doctor Navarrus), an Augustinian who was serving as a consultant to the Apostolic Penitentiary. It was  published in Rome in 1584. The first Jesuit influence upon this doctrine was not until 1609, "when Suarez rejected Azpilcueta's basic proof and supplied another" (Malloch, p.145; speaking of Francisco Suárez).
The two ends of this piece have been added to my original piece: namely, (a) ": < ! - - What doctrine does this refer to?" at the beginning, and (b) "- - >" at the end.
I am new to Wikipedia, and I have been unable to find any explanation for the "< - -" and "- - >" coding.
I am supposing that it is either a case of someone suggesting that I place the short piece in a new sub-section entitled "What doctrine does this refer to?" (which I think is a very good idea), ot that somebody is asking me to supply some supporting evience (which I can do, from the article of Malloch).
Either way, I am more than happy to perform whatever actions are required of me. I simply don't understand the "< - -" and "- - >" coding, and I would be really grateful if somebody could explain the meaning and/or the intention of that coding to me. Thannks (in anticipation)
cogtrue 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The  tags are used to place comments in the source code so that editors can see important information before editing articles. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For various reasons, it is often convenient to "comment out" something from the main article while keeping it in the source code. For example, OrphanBot comments out images with unspecified sources, keeping the name of the image file in the source so that it can be replaced easily after a source is provided. In this case, Mel Etitis commented out the paragraph in question. I don't know why he did so, but I'm sure he'd be willing to offer an explanation. In case he doesn't see this discussion, you can ask him on his talk page. Thanks. I hope this helps! --TantalumTelluride♪ 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The commented question was asking for an identification of "the doctrine of equivocation".  The article contains no other mention or explanation of a doctrine, only of the logical and stylistic uses of the term "equivocation; thus the suddent reference to the doctrine of equivocation was obscure. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I will chase it up and submit a more coherent paragraph in due course. cogtrue 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Context

message: The Jackass example could mislead people, because there are two logical fallacies in it, not one.  There is equivocation on the term 'Jackass', but there is also a fallacy of the form 'X => Y, therefore Y => X' (not sure what this fallacy should be called).  Specifically, the argument switches between 'Jackasses have long ears' and 'Things that have long ears are jackasses'.  Unless anyone objects, I will replace this with a clearer example. TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that someone has changed it - nice one.  TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I really should read the talk pages before editing articles. William Avery (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackass example is misleading. 

message: Apart from its use as a technical term in logic, equivocation can also mean the use of language that is ambiguous, i.e. equally susceptible of being understood in two different ways. There is usually a strong connotation that the ambiguity is being used with intention to deceive.  
This type of equivocation was famously mocked in the porter's speech in Shakespeare's Macbeth, in which the porter directly alludes to the practice of deceiving under oath by means of equivocation.
Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 3)
See, for example Robert Southwell and Henry Garnet, author of A Treatise of Equivocation (published secretly c. 1595) — to whom, it is supposed, Shakespeare was specifically referring. Shakespeare made the reference to priests because the religious use of equivocation was well-known in those periods of early modern England (eg under James VI/I) when it was a capital offence for a Roman Catholic priest to enter England.
A Jesuit priest would equivocate in order to protect himself from the secular authorities without (in his eyes) committing the sin of lying. For example, he could use the ambiguity of the word "a" (meaning "any" or "one") to say "I swear I am not a priest", because he could have a particular priest in mind who he was not.  That is, in his mind, he was saying "I swear I am not one priest" (e.g. "I am not Father Brown".) This was theorized by casuists as the doctrine of mental reservation.
According to Malloch (1966)  , this doctrine of permissible "equivocation" did not originate with the Jesuits.
Malloch cites a short treatise, , that had been written by Martin Azpilcueta (also known as Doctor Navarrus), an Augustinian who was serving as a consultant to the Apostolic Penitentiary. It was  published in Rome in 1584. The first Jesuit influence upon this doctrine was not until 1609, "when Suarez rejected Azpilcueta's basic proof and supplied another" (Malloch, p.145; speaking of Francisco Suárez).
:These paragraphs currently appear (out of place?) in our article on Amphibology.  I think it belongs here, but we would need to change our introductory paragraph to include both the formal logic and the everyday senses on the word in one article.  Would it be better to create a separate article on "Equivocation (outside formal logic)"?  What does anyone else think?  Dbfirs 07:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside formal logic 

message: There are no omissions in the initial sentences. 
The augmentations of "to put" and "bread" are superfluous and can be eliminated for the example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.103.189 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Better than nothing" 

message: Is this concept called amphibology as well? If yes, please clarify the text and, what is more important, provide the references.
This is especially important, since some examples seem to be those of "amphiboly" as defined in the intro. Especially keeping in mind that the wikipedia article "amphibology" differs in definition. Lolo Sambinho (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphibology 

message: May I suggest that in the introduction, the term "polysemic words" be followed by "(words with multiple meanings.)" and "amphibology" with "(ambiguous sentences.)"
(Unless an expert feels it necessary to improve on these.)
It is of great help to the majority of readers if technical terms are explained in situ.   Darkman101 (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polysemic words" and "amphibology"