| Idiosyncratic Language |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Idiosyncratic Language
|
Idiosyncratic Language FallacyThe idiosyncratic language fallacy is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. This is a fallacy that superimposes another level of fallacy on top or one or more of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. The Idiosyncratic Language Fallacy occurs when words or phrases are loaded with personal meanings rather than what those words are commonly known to mean. This is sometimes just a mechanism to create interest. However, it causes misunderstanding. Sometimes it is a mechanism to deceive. Examples of the Idiosyncratic Language FallacyA premise is known as an assumption in some logic books. If a logical argument is to be sound, then its premises must be true. An assumption is something that is assumed to be true without knowing that it is true, so the use of the word, "assumption," to mean, "premise," is idiosyncratic language. In science and logic, no difference is made between assumptions that are known to be true and assumptions that are not known to be true. This is very confusing to students who ask questions about it and generally receive very confusing or misleading answers.
Sandy is a Mormon. What he means is that he believes that Jesus is a god, one of many.
The word, "fundamentalist," was coined by Christians. Applying the word to Muslims, particularly Muslim terrorists, is deceiving. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionAmbiguity Barnum Effect Ambiguous Assertion Innuendo Sly Suggestion Syntactic Ambiguity Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy Shingle Speech Use-Mention Error Double Entendre Misuse of Etymology Garden Path Ambiguity Squinting Modifier Quantifier Shift Illicit Observation Metaphorical Ambiguity Euphemism Equivocation Redefinition Middle Puzzle Part Type-Token Ambiguity Misconditionalization Modal Scope Fallacy Scope Fallacy Ambiguous Middle Hypnotic Bait and Switch Definist Fallacy Defining a Word in Terms of Itself Socratic Fallacy Defining Terms Too Broadly Defining Terms Too Narrowly Failure to Elucidate Persuasive Definition Composition / Exception Fallacy Division Etymological Fallacy Nominalization Inference from a Label Pigeonholing Fallacy Category Mistake Conjunction Fallacy Disjunction Fallacy Information Overload Proof by Verbosity Argument by Gibberish Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety Type-Token Ambiguity Conceptual Fallacy Mistaking an Entity for a Theory Butterfly Logic Process-Product Ambiguity Recently Viewed |
