54 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
54 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Ambiguity
|
|
tags:
|
|
- topic/ambiguity
|
|
- type/encyclopedia-entry
|
|
---
|
|
# Ambiguity
|
|
|
|
Not to be confused with [[uncertainty]].
|
|
|
|
## Common Fallacies
|
|
|
|
### Reification Fallacy
|
|
|
|
> [!quote] [Reification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy))
|
|
> **Reification** ... is a fallacy of ambiguity,
|
|
> ...it is the error of treating something that is not concrete...
|
|
> as a concrete thing.
|
|
|
|
See ["the map is not the territory"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation "Map-territory relation").
|
|
|
|
> [!aside]
|
|
> This one is very common among my peers in estimating.
|
|
> The problem with fallacies, of course,
|
|
> is that you can't simply say "Reification fallacy, booyah".
|
|
> If some one is overgeneralizing,
|
|
> they likely just have a different understanding of the term.
|
|
> Certainty of definition only occurs with some quorum,
|
|
> and I'd argue most of ours in [[construction-estimating]] don't meet it,
|
|
> and that the choice of any term over another ought to be based on utility.
|
|
>
|
|
> > Note also that a term's definition can be certain ~~on some axis~~,
|
|
> > but ambiguous ~~on another~~.
|
|
> > See ["I know it when I see it"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it)
|
|
> > which, as far as I'm concerned, is a perfectly legitimate definition.
|
|
|
|
### Equivocation Fallacy
|
|
|
|
[Equivocation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation")
|
|
|
|
The misleading use of a word with more than one meaning
|
|
|
|
### Composition Fallacy
|
|
|
|
[Composition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition "Fallacy of composition")
|
|
|
|
Assuming a whole has a property because its parts have that property
|
|
|
|
### Division Fallacy
|
|
|
|
[Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division "Fallacy of division")
|
|
|
|
Assuming parts have a property because the whole has that property
|