Equivocation

Perhaps because the fallacy of Equivocation does not have a distinctive form or leading principle of its own, it can occur in reasoning of any type. In the exercises on this website I have primarily focused on Equivocation as it might occur in Deductive arguments, but Equivocation might also occur in Inductive and Retroductive arguments as well. Indeed, I believe there are some specifically Inductive and Retroductive versions of Equivocation that are worth watching out for.

INDUCTIVE:
Inappropriate operational definitions - In making observations on a sample, it is sometimes necessary to specify precisely which property or behavior we are trying to observe. Are children more active than adults? To settle this question we need to observe some children and adults. But what precisely should we be watching for? We need to know which behaviors count as "being active." Running and jumping, for example, may be suitably observable. In specifying precisely what we intend to observe we create what is called an "operational definition." It is in the nature of operational definitions to be more limited and behavioristic than the concepts they are intended to capture. Within reason, this is perfectly acceptable, and unavoidable in any case. However, sometimes the difference between the original concept and the operational definition becomes so great that we are not in fact observing what we claim to be observing. The most notorious example is the operational definition of "intelligence" as "scores well on a Stanford-Benet I.Q. test." It is known that success on the Stanford-Benet I.Q. test is heavily influenced by familiarity with the culture of white, middle-class America. People unfamiliar with that culture tend to score poorly on the test, even if they are very "intelligent" by a more usual understanding of the word.

RETRODUCTIVE:
"Why" questions - Explanations are more slippery than they appear. There are usually several ways to answer a question of the form "Why did that happen?" Why, for example, did World War I start? In some contexts it is enough to answer that question by saying that the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. But why did the assassination of the Archduke start the war? Well, it was the assassination of the Archduke that set off an ethnic conflict in which the nations of Europe became entangled because of a baroque network of mutual alliances that were in force because... and the whole thing begins to sound like "this is the house that Jack built." At what point have we given an adequate explanation? It is hard to say. Even the explanation for a much simpler event can be rife with ambiguities. Why did Socrates sit down? One way to answer that question is by saying, "Because he relaxed the muscles of his legs, causing his knees to bend." Another way to answer it is by saying, "Because he was tired." Both answers may be true, but probably only one will satisfy the question in the context in which it was asked. Answering the wrong question may give the false impression that an adequate explanation was given when in fact it was not.