Difference without distinction
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I'm aware that distinction without a difference is an informal fallacy where semantic differences between two 'concepts' are highlighted when they're practically the same (e.g. the word is different, even if the effect is identical).
Is the converse also fallacious?
For instance, some people think that the key to solving problems in binaries arising from edge cases and 'bit-of-boths' is to put things on a spectrum, or continuum. However, doing this runs the risk of categorising broad groups of behaviour under the same word or phrase, even if they are significantly different.
For example: "all white people are racist" is difference without distinction, because even if you take the position that no one is perfectly not racist (a la Kendi), and thus racial bias exists on some sort of continuum, at some point, a person is more not-prejudiced than prejudiced, yet they are still referred to by the same phrase. Therefore, the spectrum categories very different behaviours under the same group, making it unhelpful.
Counter example: "all halogens are toxic", because while they have different toxicity levels, they are all referred to as 'toxic' as this is reasonable - they all have a toxic effect on biological organisms. It would be foolish to cry "difference without distinction" here, in addition to begging the question with regards to the need to create new terminology for an effect if it takes place at higher/lower levels (e.g. being more toxic needs a more 'powerful word', being less toxic needs a 'less powerful' word).
Contra counter example: we do this all the time - just look at metric units. Millimetre, centimetre, metre, kilometre...etc. As the distance gets longer, it is simply referred to by the greater unit. Yes, you could say 100cm, or just 1m.
Contra contra counter example: you proved the point. 1m = 100cm. So using new terminology is not necessary. All that matters is that a unit to be categorised passed the threshold for being in the category; once there, there is no need to make further distinctions. All whites exist in a racialised society and have acquired, willingly or not, racist views about black people, and internalised them, therefore they are all racist regardless of their individual morality or actions.
Contra contra contra counter example: this is ignoratio elenchi because as mentioned above, if the subject instead exists on a spectrum, e.g. racial bias, then at some point there is a difference between two neighbouring states on the spectrum (more racially biased, less racially biased) - a spectrum with only one state is not a spectrum at all. Thus, the above response is also contradictio in adjecto because the person suggested that "all X are Y" regardless of their individual morality or actions...but individual morality and actions may push a person along the spectrum, e.g. a white person can choose to overcome their racial bias and thus become less biased, to the point where they are no longer meaningfully racist.
You could continue this ad nauseum, to be honest. I'm thinking that this may be situational and not automatically fallacious, dependent on reasoning of course. Thoughts?
Comments on Question
Answers
2Excellent observation and discussion. Let me see if I can rephrase the potential fallacy here.
The logical form of the distinction without a difference is
Claim X is made where the truth of the claim requires a distinct difference between A and B.
There is no distinct difference between A and B.
Therefore, claim X is true.
The proposed difference without a distinction would be
Claim X is made where the truth of the claim requires no distinction between A and B.
There is a distinct difference between A and B.
Therefore, claim X is true.
Description: The assertion that a position is the same as another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are the distinct -- at least in practice or practical terms.
Let's look at "All white people are racist."
Is the implication here that there is no difference between the most and the least prejudice of white people? I don't think so (at least I never heard anyone seriously make this claim.) The "all white people are racist" crowd are just redefining "racism", like you say, in a way that is unhelpful, because it loses meaning. But I would think even the wokest of Wokians from Wokistan would admit that there are differences between the most racist and the least racist. Therefore, in my view, their fallacy is not ignoring the distinction but attempting to broaden the criteria for inclusion in the group to the point where the term's definition is changed substantially, usually for the purpose of condemning or criminalizing a far less malicious or deleterious behavior. This is not unlike the tendency to expand the definition of "rape" to acts like removing the condom in consensual sex without the partner's permission (i.e. "stealthing") or calling people "criminals" who act unethically.
Let me know if I am understanding you correctly. Perhaps the fallacy defined in bold above is the fallacy, or there is a better example of the inverse of the distinction without a difference .
No the converse is not fallacious. Thinking that the converse is fallacious is actually the .
Rejecting the argument that all white people are racist because not all white people are equally racist is an example of the argument of the beard (this does not mean the statement is correct, only your argument is a fallacy). A lot of your arguments above also fall in the fallacy of division as well, an individual white person being anti-racist does not mean that white people as a group are not racist. Individuals can have characteristics that the group they are part of does not possess.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I would, and have, argued that the obsolete classification of race has been scientifically discredited, and therefore "racism'' can only be determined to be a stubborn residual superstition or prejudice that a person's skin color, philology, or nationality somehow qualifies them as a separate "race". A claim that is factually false and inherently ignorant.
In fact, there is no such thing as a Black, Asian, Jewish, Caucasian, Hispanic, Native American, or "other" race - superior, inferior, or otherwise. The more up-to-date and accurate description is ethnicity, while racism itself is basically a pseudo-scientific hold-over from our nescient past.
The perpetuation of the falsified classification of race is on par with other ancient superstitions, beliefs, and practices in phrenology, creationism, ritualistic murder, blood sacrifice, haruspicy, astrology, soothsaying, and 19th-century spiritualism.
So the claim, 'all white people are racist' can be readily dismissed prima facie. Since the previous classification of a race does not exist, racism is just a more specific expression of ignorance.
Therefore the claim 'All white people are racist' would be tantamount to asserting all white people are ignorant. While it is more accurate to say all white people are ignorant of something, it is just as viable to claim all human beings are ignorant of something.