On Equivocation

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Equivocation is often described as a fallacy.In this short note I argue that it is not a logical concept but an epistemic one.The argument of one who equivocates is not logically flawed, but it is unpersuasive in a very distinctive way.

Information

Type: Research Article
Information: Philosophy , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 2003 , pp. 515 - 519

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819103000469 [Opens in a new window]

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

On Equivocation

Volume 78, Issue 4
Tom Stoneham
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819103000469

Your Kindle email address

@free.kindle.com @kindle.com (service fees apply)

Available formats PDF

By using this service, you agree that you will only keep content for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services

Reply to: Submit a response

Title * Please enter a title for your response.

Contents * Please enter your response.

Your details

First name * Please enter a valid first name. Only letters, spaces, hyphens, apostrophes, and periods are allowed.

Last name * Please enter a valid last name. Only letters, spaces, hyphens, apostrophes, and periods are allowed.

Please enter a valid email address.

Occupation Please enter your occupation.

Affiliation Please enter any affiliation.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? * Conflicting interests help

Yes No

More information * Please enter details of the conflict of interest or select 'No'.

Please tick the box to confirm you agree to our Terms of use. *

Please accept terms of use.

Please tick the box to confirm you agree that your name, comment and conflicts of interest (if accepted) will be visible on the website and your comment may be printed in the journal at the Editor’s discretion. *

Please confirm you agree that your details will be displayed.

Article contents

On Equivocation

Abstract

Information

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests