Verbal Fallacies
Verbal fallacies, also called fallacies of ambiguity, arise when the conclusion is achieved through an improper use of words. The verbal fallacies often lead to misleading conclusions and distorted perceptions. The audience often gets confused as he misinterprets the words and misunderstands the message.
The verbal fallacies are sometimes unavoidable due to the structure of the language and words themselves, as most words contain multiple meanings depending on the context. However, sometimes, the author deliberately uses ambiguous words to manipulate the audience to interpret the message in a particular way without being direct and precise. When we understand the verbal fallacies, we can be more precise and accurate in our argument and better understand the arguments of others.
1. Abstraction
In our common language, words like equality, justice, secularism, and unemployment are quite abstract because they can be interpreted differently. Moreover, their meaning changes with time, place and context. For instance, the term ‘equality’ may mean “equal opportunity”, “equality before the law”, “equal rights”, or “equality of income”. However, equality can also be interpreted as “treating equal people equally” and “unequal people unequally”. This interpretation of equality, sometimes called “equity” means recognizing that people start from different places and providing resources to help everyone achieve equal outcomes. This interpretation of ‘equality’ is widely used nowadays to justify special treatment to the weaker section of society to provide them a level playing field leading to equal representation of all social segments, which means positive discrimination or reservation based on caste, religion or race. Accordingly, equality justifies that the weaker section of society must be given preference compared to the well-off section to compensate for their social disadvantage based on caste, gender, race, education or economic status. However, such an interpretation of equality contradicts the meaning of equality, as it justifies discrimination of people on the basis of caste, creed, gender, etc.
The word “secular” also means different things to different people. For instance, some people may consider secular to mean equal respect for all religions, while for other people, secularism means “atheism”, having no relationship with religion. For some other people, secularism means that states should maintain neutrality towards religion, and everyone must be allowed to practice their religion without any state support or proscription.
The commonly used term “unemployment” also carries different meaning to different people unless it is well defined. Does unemployment include self-employed and underemployed people? Should “employees” mean only those who are working in the organised sector with job security or include the contractual workers in its ambit?
We can avoid the ambiguity of the meaning of abstract words or ideas by properly defining the terms. For instance, instead of using the word ‘equality’, we can be more precise and explain what we really mean by “equality” and use the term “equality of opportunity”—the more precise the statement, the crisper the logic.
2. Equivocation
Equivocation is a way of speaking that is intentionally not clear and is confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth. When a word is used equivocally, misunderstandings and fallacious reasoning are always possible. The fallacy arises when a word or phrase is used in one sense in one premise and in another sense in other premises or in the conclusion.
Argument
- What is light can’t be dark
- Feather is light
- Hence, feathers can’t be dark
Here, the word ‘LIGHT’ has a different meaning in both premises. While in the first case, “light” means the intensity of colour, in the second case, it infers the weight. However, the conclusion is based on the incorrect meaning of the word, causing the equivocation fallacy.
Argument
- The loss made James mad.
- Mad people should be institutionalized.
- So, James should be institutionalized.
In this case, the word MAD has two different meanings: angry & insane, and the conclusion is based on the incorrect meaning of the word.
3. Composition
The fallacy of composition occurs when we assume that parts or members of a whole will have the same properties as the whole. This leads to wrong conclusions because what is true of the different parts is not necessarily true of the whole.
Form of Logic
- Y is part of X.
- Y has property A.
- Therefore, X also has property A.
The Composition can be valid, or invalid depending on the context. Here are the examples of valid and invalid arguments.
Valid Arguments
- “All the parts of this desk are made of metal; therefore, this desk is made of metal.”
- A spoonful of soup is spicy, so the whole pot of soup is spicy.
Invalid Arguments
- This house is made of bricks. A brick is light in weight. Therefore, this house is also light in weight.
- A thread used for a garment is easily torn, so the garment will be easily torn.
4. Division
The fallacy of division is the opposite of the fallacy of composition. Here, the writer ascribes the properties of the whole to its parts.
Logic:
- Y is part of X.
- X has property A.
- Therefore, Y also has property A
The argument can be valid or invalid, depending on the context.
Valid argument
- Every drop of ocean water is salty.
- I took a jug of water from the ocean.
- Hence, the jug of water is salty.
Invalid Argument
- Bengalis travel a lot
- Aakash Roy is a Bengali
- So, Alkesh Roy travels a lot.
5. Accent
In the accent fallacy, the meaning of a word, sentence, or entire idea is interpreted differently by changing where the accent falls.
Logical Form
- Claim is made with accent on word X giving claim meaning Y.
- Claim is interpreted with accent on word A giving claim meaning B.
Argument
- Police: “Why did you shoot John?”
- Bill, “I shot John?”
- Police before the court: He confessed before us, “I shot John”.
Here, Bill was surprised by the allegation when he said, “I shot John?”. However, the police interpreted his words as a confession.
Dealing With verbal Fallacies
A critical thinker must avoid putting forth his arguments that can be misinterpreted and lead to the erroneous communication of logic. However, due to multiple use of a term, some amount of ambiguity is inevitable. Hence, the receiptent must try to clear the ambiguity to understand the exact message of the argument. The following methods can be useful in removing the verbal fallacy and understand the logic clarly.
1. Asking the questions
When you are discussing the matter and the speaker is available to clear the ambiguity, it is best to ask the question to know the exact meaning of the words and remove ambiguity. For example, you ask the speaker to clarify the ambiguous terms or ask questions like “What do you mean by ambiguous words like equality?
2. Role Playing
Most of the time, the speaker is unavailable to clarify the ambiguous terms. In such a situation, the precise meaning of the terms can be ascertained on the basis of the context using empathy, i.e. putting yourself in another person’s situation through your imagination and try to understand their feelings, reasons and experiences as if it were your own. Hence, while interpreting the argument, the character, position, ideals, organisation, and behaviour of the author are vital factors, particularly when there is an ambiguity in the terms. For instance, “equality” may mean different things if stated by a politician, a person from the weaker section of society, or a person from the privileged section. People generally interpret the meaning of the words that suit them the most. For instance, the tax laws are the same in a country, but the tax officer interprets it in a way that maximises the tax collection for the government. In contrast, the taxpayers interpret it in a manner that minimizes the tax liability. Hence, the laws try to be as specific as possible to avoid ambiguity.
3. Context
The authors rarely define all the terms they are using, and they assume that the audience would be able to understand the terms based on the context. Hence, to find the exact meaning of the terms, go between the lines and find out the context of the statement. For example, we can look at the words appearing before and after the term and accordingly interpret the meaning of the term. For example, consider the statement. “During the fasting, you can eat foods like apples, grapes, or bananas”. It is evident that the foods here do not include everything eatable, but only the fruits, as the examples contain only fruits.
We must also know the time and place of the statement. For instance, if something had been said thousands of years ago, the meaning of a particular term would be different than what exists today. For instance, in the past, the word ‘virtue” in the context of females could have meant being faithful and submissive to your husband, producing many children and taking care of the family. However, the meaning of feminine virtues today has changed today as the virtues become more gender-neutral. Likewise, the word ‘dharma’ in the past was “doing the duty according to your caste and gender”, but today, it may mean doing your duty according to your profession.
God’s meaning may differ in different religions, societies and times. For instance, Newton (1643 – 1727) was a devout Christian and believed in the monotheistic God as the masterful creator of the universe whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. In those days, there was no scientific theory for the creation of the universe, which came much later when Charles Darwin (1809 –1882) gave his theory of evolution, and Alexander Friedmann in 1922, gave the Big Bang theory to describe how the universe was created. His views would have been totally different if Newton had known these scientific principles. Hence, it would be unjustified to quote Newton’s view to justify the existence of God.
Hence, it is important to understand and communicate the term’s precise meaning to provide an argument or understand it. In the next chapter, we shall learn why most people can’t identify the different types of fallacies and accept the fallacious arguments. We shall also learn in subsequent chapters how we can avoid all types of fallacies to develop our critical thinking.
