Talk:False equivalence/Archive 1

(Partial) Merge with False Balance?
The media/journalism meaning of False Equivalence has a synomym in False Balance, which has its own article (also see discussion on talk page there). Now what? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the media/journalism part has been merged with False Balance, but whence the other part, about false equivalence in logic? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The original article about "false equivalence" has been restored.

FYI Please Be Aware that "False Balance" is NOT "False Equivalence". "False Balance" is what happens when the media fails to avoid the fallacy of Middle Ground.

Please do not conflate "False Equivalence" and "False Balance".

Please make sure this article is not merged with "False Balance" again.

"False Equivalency" is a logical fallacy that happens when two things that are not the same, are presented as being the same or "equivalent", when they are not.

Examples Bacha Bazi and Catholic sex abuse cases can be presented as being the same thing because both are horrific child abuse. This is false equivalence. Both are horrific, but one is accepted as the norm, done publicly, and allowed by the culture it is resident in. The other is done very secretly and kept hidden by its transgressor as long as possible. And when found out the activity is greatly reviled by the society it is resident in. Jjk (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Needs references, but this is a much better topic than what I merged. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

oppose merge; NOT the same thing, as the above commentor has stated. ironically, the rationale for the merger proposal is itself a kind of "false equivalence". xD Lx 121 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing bad "in other words"
This topic has nothing to do with the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation", so I'm replacing that sentence. Nathan hawks (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

False analogy
In Dutch the literal translation of false analogy and false equivalance are used interchangeably. I think there is a minor difference between the two terms in English; false equivalence is a more logical/mathematical term and false analogy a more rhetorical term. Could somebody shed ligth on this difference? False analogy has more Google Books hits than false equivalence, so it might make sense to rename the article. Femkemilene (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * False analogy currently redirects to Argument from analogy, which is probably appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe these articles should be merged. The difference between te two terms seems rather small to me. Femkemilene (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Argument from analogy is a type of inductive reasoning, while False equivalence is a logical fallacy. And while inductive reasoning is the base of statistics, logical fallacies are incorrecr reasoning that is only usefull for decieving people.

Sisima70 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

STRONGLY oppose merge; equivalence & analogy are 2 clearly different things. the mere fact that they "overlap" on being "false" don't make then "the same". :p Lx 121 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

re: proposed "equivocation" merge
someone has also stuck a tag on equivocation, suggesting it be merged here; so, for the record:

strong oppose merge. NOT the same thing; which really should be obvious, from reading & comparing the 2 articles.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

oppose merge. The whole concept of "false equivalence" seems quite new and very poorly reasoned, and has nothing to do with equivocation in any case. Lunkwill (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

strong oppose merge. These are related but distinctly different concepts. A reference from one to the other IS a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley D. Willilams (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition and description inconsistent?
The definition states that this fallacy involves "two opposing arguments". The "characteristics" section does not clearly explain anything about "opposing" arguments- just incorrect arguments, i.e. intensity matching. Neither do the examples show "two opposing arguments" very well. For instance, what are the "two opposing arguments" in the first example: "They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog." Is it that (1) cats are soft and cuddly and (2) dogs are soft and cuddly? These are the assumptions, but they don't seem "opposed" to each other. Or is there only one argument: (1) cats and dogs are the same. The latter seems like the argument, but what is "opposed" to it, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.96.124 (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * These are pretty lousy examples. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I changed these examples to ones that more specifically show false equivalence, and added a sentence to each showing why the equivalence is false. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That definition is closely paraphrased from source [2] (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence), and is not specifically attributed. At the end of that source, there is a disclaimer saying "This is a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found." I don't think that sounds particularly reliable. To echo what was said above, the definition is strange, and does not align clearly with the examples. Does a single one of these examples concern two opposing arguments? I don't see how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8500:AE30:ADF3:395D:5241:5812 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Fake fallacy?
Isn't it a fake fallacy? (Berezow, 2017, p. 22) I checked few textbooks, but phrase "false equivalence" is nowhere there, ie:
 * A Concise Introduction to Logic --Pedros.lol (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Reconsider oil spill example
Spilled motor oil, such as leaks from cars, rivals that from large oil spill accidents, 180m gallos/yr according to the Mass Dept of Environmental protection.Mirboj (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a lot of cars combined. The article specifically says "your neighbour's car", so just the one. Britmax (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Weird joke example - Jesus vs Hitler?
Does the "Jesus Christ is Hitler because they both have mustaches" example box not strike anyone else as insufficiently serious treatment of the subject? I went into History just to make sure it wasn't vandalism/someone's idea of a joke. It's not really a good example because it's not the kind of mistake anyone might realistically make, it brings religion and the holocaust (both pretty charged topics) into the discussion unnecessarily, and it seems just generally kind of juvenile. On the upside, it made me laugh. Lolbifrons (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * +1. The analogy can be made with a less controversial/inflammatory pair of people, or something else entirely. Alvint69 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, it's a very obvious example that everyone can agree on. --MopTop (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it juvenile, nor controversial. It is an obvious example that uses some humor to make a point. --evrik (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Worzel Gummidge and Jeremy Corbyn would be a better example. They’re both scruffy vegetable lovers but one is a children’s television character and the other is a racist politician. 2A02:C7F:2300:3400:7153:F745:C495:DB13 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I consider this comparison unnecessarily controversial and offensive - inappropriate for an article in a serious encyclopedia. On the other hand I do acknowledge the global knowledge/recognition of the pair. (In contrast, Worzel Gummidge and Jeremy Corbyn are unlikely to be well known outside the UK.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.27.193 (talk • contribs) 05:44, May 15, 2021 (UTC)

How is this a logical fallacy?
The first paragraph in this article declares that this is a logical fallacy (which is a "pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure", according to the page Logical fallacy). Since only deductive arguments can be invalid, it must mean that false equivalence is a deductive argument. However, nowhere on this page does it state how the logical structure is flawed in false equivalence (compare modus ponens, which can be flawed by affirming the consequent). Furthermore, comparing an apple to an orange does not entail a flawed logical structure (that is an argument from analogy, which is, as previous comments have noticed, an inductive argument that can also be fallacious, although not logically invalid because it is not deductive). My suggestion would be to remove the "logical fallacy" and instead write that it is a common way of argumentation that sometimes may be flawed (but it's not as straightforward that it's simply an invalid argument). Peterdalle (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)