Question

...
Jason Mathias

Double standard, or false equivalence?

Person 1: I can't find a specific food item in this massive walk in pantry because there are over 10,000 different products in here and all of them have advertising written all over them and I can't read them all to find the one thing I am looking for.  

Person 1 is now in the kitchen cooking something in the oven. 

Person 2: Hey persson 1, turn the oven off. Here let me show you where the off button is. 

Person 1: I don't need you to show me where the off button is bc I know how to read the word off. 

Person 2: Well you said you cant read in the pantry, but now you can read the oven, why the double standard? 

Person 1: Its not a double standard, because you are committing a false equivalence. Because there are only 8 buttons on the oven, so I can glance and find the off button in a matter of seconds, where it would take me all day to read every product in the pantry. 

Person 2: Pfffff, whatever. 

 

asked on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 12:09:59 PM by Jason Mathias

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Mr. Wednesday
3

This would be false equivalence . Person 1 makes it clear that they can't find the specific text they're looking for because there's such a high volume of things to read, even if 10,000 is figurative. A typical oven interface has about 5 buttons with text on it, and is therefore lacking the key feature from the first situation.
answered on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 02:46:17 PM by Mr. Wednesday

Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
AI Fallacy Master
0
In this conversation, Person 1 and Person 2 engage in a battle of logical fallacies and poor reasoning.

First, Person 1 commits a fallacy known as hasty generalization. They assume that because they cannot find a specific food item in the pantry due to the overwhelming number of products, reading all the labels would take them all day. This reasoning lacks evidence and jumps to a conclusion without considering other factors.

Person 2 then commits the fallacy of false equivalence by comparing Person 1's struggle with reading labels in the pantry to their ability to read the word "off" on the oven. These two situations are not equivalent as the pantry contains thousands of products, while the oven only has eight buttons.

In response, Person 1 counters with a logical explanation. They argue that the number of buttons on the oven makes it easier to locate the off button quickly, unlike in the pantry where reading thousands of labels would be time-consuming. However, Person 2 dismisses this reasoning with a dismissive "Pfffff, whatever" response, showing their unwillingness to engage in a logical debate.

Overall, this conversation showcases a mix of logical fallacies, poor reasoning, and a lack of willingness to consider valid points, resulting in a humorous display of flawed arguments.
answered on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 12:16:26 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
Jason Mathias writes:

Thank you for your comment, and yes it is humorous.

Doesn't a hasty generalization have to do with statistics and populations? And wouldn't the evidence be that person 1 can't ever find what they are looking for in the pantry? And what are the other factors?

And what do you think about the double standard claim?

posted on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 12:43:19 PM
...
2
Mr. Wednesday writes:

[To Jason Mathias ]

I don't think the bot responds to comments. But I think the information it's lacking is that "all day" is used as a figure of speech, and that people generally have enough experience to estimate how long it will take to perform tasks similar to ones they've done before, like viewing a volume of text and estimating based on their typical reading speed.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Sep 14, 2023 02:51:33 PM
...
Jonathan Thomas
0

I think false equivalence would work better but I also think equivocation of "read" may also be at issue. In the pantry the use of "read" is about the sheer quantity of things to read, with the buttons it has to do with the ability to read and understanding words.

answered on Monday, Sep 18, 2023 10:01:38 AM by Jonathan Thomas

Jonathan Thomas Suggested These Categories

Comments