J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.
False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn’t bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: “If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal”. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.
False equivalence arguments are often used in politics, where the minor flaws of one candidate may be compared to major flaws of another.
For example:
Donald Trump uses a lot of profanity.
False equivalence – Candidate B has been known to swear on occasion.
See, they are all alike.
False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn’t bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: “If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal”. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.
False equivalence arguments are often used in politics, where the minor flaws of one candidate may be compared to major flaws of another.
For example:
Donald Trump uses a lot of profanity.
False equivalence – Candidate B has been known to swear on occasion.
See, they are all alike.
Last edited: