Question

...
Kostas Oikonomou

Comment about False Equivalence definition

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'? 
asked on Saturday, Apr 22, 2023 11:11:49 AM by Kostas Oikonomou

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

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.

posted on Monday, Apr 24, 2023 08:06:05 AM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Well, since the definition starts with the word "argument" I believe it would be unnecessary to restate the "argument context" part. Also, I don't get why the two things compared must be opposing.  They have differences but that doesn't necessarilly make them opposing. And the argument doesn't necessarily have to be a response to another argument, hence the opposition. It could just be an initiating claim. My take would be just "an argument or claim in which two things appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they're not" . 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Apr 24, 2023 09:39:07 AM

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

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Mchasewalker
0

A 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.

answered on Saturday, Apr 22, 2023 12:21:14 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

I think those atheists might be comparing the truth value of religious texts to fairy tales and folklore (in that they're both narratives created by society, and aren't actual reflections of the workings or history of the natural world).

If someone suggested that the Torah and New Testament have the same *place* in society as Lord of the Rings, then they'd need to clarify whether they were being normative or descriptive. If the former, it's just an opinion. If the latter, I agree this would not be accurate (Lord of the Rings is universally acknowledged as fiction; the Torah and New Testament are taken seriously as religious texts and their teachings are adhered to by millions).

posted on Sunday, Apr 23, 2023 06:44:23 AM