Comment about False Equivalence definition
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
The false equivalence reads
'An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic...'
Is the phrase 'opposing arguments' correct? The things compared are arguments or something else like items, situations etc.?
Moreover, if they have a 'shared characteristic', how can they be 'completely opposing'?
Comments on Question
Answers
1A grossly false equivalence would be to compare the cartoon caricature of Felix the Cat with Michelangelo's Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel. They are both "art" in a loosely generalized sense, but they are worlds apart in classification craft, skill, and artistry.
We see this a lot in an atheistic argument with theists. Atheists often compare the Torah and the New Testament of The Bible with fairy tales, folklore, and fictional epics like Lord of the Rings, but in literary analysis, religious myth, and the sacred aretalogies of gods and goddesses are of very different literary genres than Hobbits, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.
The argument is not just a False Equivalence in the logical sense even though they all may be fiction, and there even may be biographical similarities e.g. Dorothy of Kansas may be an orphan every bit as Moses was in Exodus, but one is literary fiction and the other is religious foundational, symbolic, and ethnic mythology.
So, while the argument that Felix Cat is just as much art as The Creation of Adam may be based on similar characteristics, the opposing argument would refute that claim as a false equivalence.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I have to think about this. Fallacies focus on arguments... perhaps it would be more clear to write something such as to opposing things in argument context. I am okay with the shared characteristic. For example, positive and negative can be completely opposing, but share the characteristic of "electrical charge." Satan and God can be completely opposing, but share the characteristic of "supernatural being" (or mythical character, depending on one's beliefs). One could quibble about what "completely" means, I guess.