False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons
This is a professional note extracted from an online article.
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
IDEA EXTRACTED FROM:
It is a logical fallacy and it occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equal because they share some characteristics, regardless of the notable differences between them.
For example, saying that cats and dogs are the same type of animal because they're both mammals and have a tail.
If you’re unsure about whether an equivalence that you’re thinking about is reasonable or not, try to highlight the differences between the things that you’re equating, and ask yourself whether the equivalence still holds.
It happens when there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, and you assume that the truth must rest somewhere in the middle. False balance can be a result of a false equivalence when two sides are presented as being equal, and the terms are used interchangeably, even though they are not.
For instance, in a group interview, equal weight is given to the opinions of two opposing interviewees, one of whom is an established expert, and the other a false authority with no valid credentials.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
A fallacy is the use of faulty reasoning in an argument.
There are formal and informal fallacies:
In this fallacy, someone behaves in a way that negatively affects others but then gets upset when others criticize their behavior. They will reply with a "mind your own business."
For instance, someone who doesn't see a reason to bathe, but then boards a full 10-hour flight.
It happens when someone continues in a course of action, even if evidence shows that it's a mistake.
Common phrase: "We've always done it this way, so we'll keep doing it this way." "I've already invested so much..."
6 more ideas
The reason people jump to conclusions is the fact that they find it easy.
Fact-checking and 100 percent accuracy on everything they see or observe consume way too much time for a normal person.
Taking mental shortcuts is the path most people choose to jump to conclusions.
5 more ideas
Is a logical fallacy where someone concludes that since they can’t believe that a certain concept is true, then it must be false and vice versa.
Its 2 basic forms:
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.
Conclusions: proposition X is false.
... and to bring this up as part of an argument. The issue with doing so occurs when this incredulity isn’t justified or supported by concrete information, and when this lack of belief is used in order to assume that a preferred personal explanation must be the right one, despite the lack of proof.
At the same time, it’s also important to remember that it’s possible that the person using the argument from incredulity is right, despite the fact that their reasoning is flawed.
one more idea