Because

  How to Analyze and Evaluate Ordinary Reasoning

  Principle of Clarity:  Innuendo and Equivocation

 G. Randolph Mayes

 Department of Philosophy

 Sacramento State University

Although reasoning is something that you can do in the relative privacy of your own mind, it is more commonly an act of communication.  Usually it is to others that we justify our beliefs and with others that we attempt to understand the world.  As such, reasoning is a cooperative undertaking that requires clarity on the part of those who supply it, and charity on the part of those who receive it.  So far we have focused on the importance of charity as a guide to the reconstruction and evaluation of rationales. We now turn to the importance of clarity in the actual formulation and presentation of reasoning.

Like the Principle of Charity, the Principle of Clarity can be formulated in the language of the Golden Rule:  Reason unto others as you would have them reason unto you. But, again just likr yhe Principle of Charity, this formulation works only for those who are comfortable approaching reasoning from a logical point of view. Someone who reasons "You should wear the black dress. The one you're wearing makes you look a lot fatter than you are," is quite a bit clearer than someone who reasons "That's a really pretty dress, but maybe you should wear the black one tonight instead.  It is so sexy. "  But there are times in life when tact, not clarity is the most important thing. (Philosophers don't always get that.)

It is worth noting here that while we will usually speak of clarity as a presentational virtue and charity as an interpretive virtue, both principles really aim at the same thing. To be charitable is to provide the clearest possible interpretation; to be clear is to reason in a way that facilitates charitable interpretation.  So the Principle of Charity and the Principle of Clarity are just two ways of expressing a more fundamental commitment to rational communication and inquiry.

Exploiting Context:  Innuendo

Human beings have an extraordinary ability to communicate things that they don't actually say.  Of course, other animals are good at this, too, since they communicate without saying anything at all.  But we are unique in that we can use language to communicate things that we don't say.  This is actually a nice way to understand the purpose of implication. Because we are able to detect logical relationships, we are able to draw conclusions that are logically implied, but not stated.  For example:

• Simone:  I busted my hump cleaning the house this morning and when I left here this place was spotless.  Someone really did a number on this place, and you Steven are the only one who has been here all day.
• Steven:  So, what are you trying to say?

Short of explicitly ruling out the possibility that the house messed itself up, Simone has given Dirk all the information he needs to understand that Simone believes Dirk messed up the house.  Her statements, properly interpreted, logically imply this.  But we rarely need to be this explicit.  We can get people to draw conclusions that are neither stated nor logically implied, but merely suggested.  For example:

• Mom:  Rachel, you were out awfully late last night.  I hope you weren't at Vinny's again.  You know how your father and I disapprove of him.
• Rachel:  Mom, I swear, I was not at Vinny's. When are you going to start trusting me.  I went to the movies with Bruce.
• Mom:  Bruce?  Oh, that's great. I really like Bruce.

Notice that Rachel has just convinced her mom that she wasn't with Vinny even though she didn't say that or anything that strictly implied that.  Now, as you probably realize, the truth is that she was with Vinny.  She and her friend Lynn went with Vinny and Bruce to the movies, and later on they went back to Lynn's house, where Rachel had precisely the sort of interaction with Vinny that her mother is concerned about. 

If Rachel feels any guilt about how she answered her mother's question, she may seek consolation in the fact that she didn't literally lie to her.  After all, Mom asked if Rachel was at Vinny's house, not if she was with Vinny.  And Rachel did, in a sense, go to the movies with Bruce (after all, he was there), it just so happens that she was with Vinny.  Of course, if Rachel is honest with herself she will realize that whether she calls it lying or not, she certainly deceived her mother.  She did so by taking advantage of a context in which it was perfectly reasonable to conclude from what Rachel said that she had not been with Vinny at all.

To understand what Rachel in logical terms we introduce the following logical fallacy:

Innuendo

• Definition:  Exploiting contextual assumptions to suggest a conclusion that has been neither stated nor logically implied, when there are reasons for doubting that one would be willing to claim it explicitly.
• MOI:  Identify the suggested conclusion, showing how, in the given context, it might be reasonably inferred despite the fact that it was neither stated nor implied.  Give reasons for doubting that it's author would claim it explicitly.

People like Rachel often commit the fallacy of innuendo on purpose, which means that they are purposely trying to get others to believe something that has been neither stated nor implied.  However, strictly speaking the fallacy doesn't require people to do this intentionally.  Rather, it just requires them to use language so unclearly that it has this effect.

Let's look at a couple of more examples of innuendo.

Example 1

• Frieda:  Melanie this meat is really tender!  Did you that a car ran over your Chihuahua yesterday?

Analysis:  This is an innuendo.  Without saying so, Melanie suggests the conclusion that they are eating Frieda's dead dog.  This is obviously a (gross) joke, which is why she wouldn't claim explicitly that they were eating Frieda's dog.

Rachel succeeded in obfuscating her relationship with Vinny in two ways. 

First, she took advantage of the context by making claims that were literally true, but which suggested things that were actually false; i.e., it is true that she was not at Vinny's house, but in the context, this suggested the false conclusion that she was not with Vinny at all. 

Second, she made statements whose truth depended on certain words being interpreted in a way that was not appropriate to the context; i.e., Rachel said that she had been "with" Bruce in a context that suggested that she had been with Bruce in particular rather than merely traveling in the same group. (Rachel's vegetarian joke also traded on using the phrase "have for dinner" in a way that was different than her mom intended, though this didn't contribute to the obfuscation.)

These two ways of taking advantage of unstated contextual assumptions can be formalized as follows.

Example 1

• Frieda:  Melanie this meat is really tender!  Did you that a car ran over your Chihuahua yesterday?

Analysis:  Without saying so, Melanie suggests the conclusion that they are eating Frieda's dead dog. 

Example 2

• Frieda:  Did you know that Martha and I are the only ones who are getting an A in logic?
• Melanie:  No, I didn't know that, but it sure doesn't surprise me that you guys are getting exactly the same grade, since you always seem to get exactly the same score on all of your assignments.

Analysis: This is a straightforward case of Melanie insinuating, without claiming explicitly, that Melanie is getting an A in logic because she copies Martha's assignments, or vice versa.

Example 3

• Frankie Roberts, Jr.  was like so many teenagers in our community. He was active in sports, popular with classmates, and was adored by his parents.  Often called a “gentle giant” by those who loved him, Frankie was known for his kindness and commitment to being a successful adult.  Tragically, Frankie was also like so many teens in our community because he abused steroids, and last year, at the age of 19, the beautiful young man took his life trying to withdraw from the deadly drug.

Analysis:  This is an innuendo because it suggests without saying so that the effects of withdrawal from steroids was the primary reason for Frankie's suicide.  The author should either say so explicitly, or provide straightforward reasons for thinking this is a common effect.

It is important to be cautious in accusing someone of committing an innuendo.  Because we often do not say things we really do mean, it can seem as if we are committing innuendo when we are not.  For example, if you said that you had dinner at Lenny's last night, that strongly suggests that you had dinner with Lenny himself.  Unless (as in the Rachel case above) I have some reasons for thinking that you did not have dinner with Lenny, I should not be suspecting you of committing innuendo when you say this. 

Example 4

• Helena:  Melissa, do you still seriously wonder whether men find you attractive?  That guy just held the door open for you when you were still 30 feet away, and then practically wet himself when you winked at him. 

Analysis : This may seem like an innuendo, because it strongly suggests that men find Melissa attractive without actually saying it.  But Helena clearly is saying that men do find Melissa  attractive, so it does not really conform to the definition.  It is important to understand that we often suggest things that we really would state explicitly, just because suggestion is more fun, or explicit statement is deemed unnecessary. (Note, that you might say that there is an innuendo here that blondes are stupid.)

The Fallacy of Equivocation

Another common way of violating the principle of clarity is to equivocate on the meaning of a word or phrase. To understand what we mean here, let's revisit an example that we earlier identified as both an ad hominem and a straw man..

• Jesus Christ, I am just sick of that Reverend Tom Baxter preaching to us about love.  Love thy neighbor! Love thy enemies!  Love thy neighborhood child molester!  After that affair he had with Wilma Barrington last year you'd think he might realize that lovin' your neighbor's wife just ain't a particularly bright idea.

Recall that the straw man aspect of this example relies on using the word 'love' in two different ways.  Tom Baxter is not encouraging his congregation to become romantically involved with their neighbors and enemies, but what the speaker is saying only makes sense if he attributes that meaning to the preacher.

Here is the formal definition of equivocation.

Equivocation

• Definition: Using a word or expression in a sense that is alien to the given context without adequate notice or justification.
• Identification:  Identify the word or expression in question and identify the two different senses that have been equivocated upon:  (1) the sense that would normally be assumed in the given context and (2) the sense that is being assigned without adequate notice or justification.

Here are a few examples of equivocation.

Example 1

• Melanie:  I enjoy doing art.
• Frieda:  That's nice.  And does Art enjoy doing you?

Analysis

Two words have been equivocated upon:  "doing" and "art".  Melanie uses the terms to express her enjoyment of artistic activities.   Frieda assigned different meanings to suggest that what Melanie was expressing was her satisfying sexual activities with a man named Art.

Example 2

• Frieda:  That was Martha.  Did you know that Martha truly believes that Derrick is in love with her?
• Melanie:  Wow, Sammy is going to be upset.  Aren't Sammy and Derrick like practically engaged?
• Frieda:  Yeah, but Sammy won't be upset.  It's no skin off her nose.
• Melanie:  What do you mean.  I'd be upset if Lennny was two-timing me.
• Frieda:  What? Derrick isn't two-timing Sammy.
• Melanie:  You just said Derrick is in love with Martha.
• Frieda:  No I didn't!  I said Martha believes that.
• Melanie: You said she believes it and that it's true.
• Frieda.  No, I said she truly believes that.
• Melanie:  Right!  So it's true.
• Frieda: No, she just really, sincerely believes it!
• Melanie: Oh, well, you should have said that.

Analysis

This is  an example of equivocation on the phrase "truly believes".  Frieda uses the phrase to mean "sincerely believes" but Melanie understands it to mean "has a true belief that". 

Of course, this is not a very serious example.  It's more of a comedy of errors in the tradition of Abbot and Costello's Who's on First?  Although for us it does serve as another illustration of the difference between asserting that someone believes something and asserting that what they believe is true.  And, in fact, the equivocal meaning of the phrase "truly believe" is easily exploited to give specious plausibility to certain sincerely held beliefs for which there is actually very little evidence.

Example 3

• Francine:  Well, I'm sorry you got into an accident, but you're definitely the one whose legally responsible for it.  You rear-ended the guy while you were talking on your cell-phone.
• Vanna:  I am not responsible!  He slammed on his breaks just to avoid a friggin' squirrel!

Analysis:  This example equivocates on the term 'responsible'.  Francine  said that Vanna is legally responsible for the accident.   Vanna seems to be claiming that she is not causally or morally responsible.

Example 4

Jokes often depend on equivocation.  For example:

• Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps, "My friend is dead! What can I do?". The operator says "Calm down. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says "OK, now what?"

Analysis

This joke equivocates on the phrase "make sure".  In one sense "make sure" means "verify".  In the other sense it means "cause".

You may be interested to know that this joke won an international contest to determine the funniest joke in the world.

Here is another example:

Example 5

• Two TV antennas  met on a roof, fell in love and got married.  The ceremony was boring as hell but the reception was incredible.

Analysis:  This joke equivocates on the word 'reception'.  The two meanings are "celebration after a wedding" and "resolution of a radio signal".

Example 6

• Melanie:  Is something wrong?  You've really been acting different lately.
• Frieda:  What are you trying to say? I thought being different is what you liked about me.

This example contains both equivocation and innuendo. 

Analysis 1

Frieda equivocates on the term "different."  Melanie originally used the term to mean that Frieda's behavior has changed.  Frieda's response shows that she has interpreted Melanie's remark as a complaint that Frieda is different from other people. 

Analysis 2

Frieda's hypersensitive response also contains an innuendo because it suggests, without implying or claiming explicitly, that  Melanie is criticizing her unfairly, and that perhaps it is really Melanie who has changed.  It is not clear that Frieda would claim this explicitly, since her only basis for saying it is her own misinterpretation of an expression of concern for a criticism.

And here is an example that may appear to be an equivocation, but really is not.

Example 6

• It was probably  inevitable that Barack Obama's speech on race would be dissected during another race, the race for the U.S. presidency.

IAnalysis 

This example may appear to commit equivocation but it does not.  Here, the author clearly and intentionally uses the term 'race' in two different sense.  But she does this just to be cute.  Nobody who understands English will confuse one usage with the other.  It is important to remember that equivocation occurs as a fallacy only when the meanings of the words or expressions are actually being conflated.