| Ambiguity |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Ambiguity
|
Logical Fallacy of AmbiguityAmbiguity 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. The logical fallacy of ambiguity occurs when the conclusion is not proved due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Ambiguity
Bill's argument is that he can see something (we don't know what, so this is ambiguous.) with his own eyes that refutes the history that God is giving us through Scripture. At no time, during the debate from which this quote came, did Bill Nye give any credible evidence that in any way could back up his claim.
Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of ambiguity among other fallacies. What is this "previous experience." He doesn't say. That is because assumptions are arbitrary. They may be held within certain parameters, but the assumptions themselves are arbitrary. They are usually pulled from worldviews, that is, paradigms. That's why they are often stated as if they were part of reality. A worldviews is a fake-reality that seems more real than real reality. He is also using the logical fallacy of false cause and effect by saying that assumptions come from previous experience. If there is a previous experience, that is empirical. Empirical observation, that is experience of reality, is not assumption, nor can it generate assumptions. Assumptions come from the imagination, from the worldview/paradigm/fake-reality that is built in the human mind. They may be rationalized, but they cannot be proved. They are always arbitrary. On the other hand, Divine revelation has a source other than the human mind. It is not arbitrary. However, the human mind is very skilled at adding assumptions to Divine revelation or using assumptions to take some parts out of Divine revelation, and this is extremely deceptive. We see this at work in many of the interpretations of what can be plainly read in Scripture or plainly seen in creation around us.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionBarnum 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 Idiosyncratic Language 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 |
