Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. [1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not. Feedback fallacy – believing in the objectivity of an evaluation to be used as the basis for improvement without verifying that the source of the evaluation is a disinterested party.
False equivalence: Fallacy based on flawed reasoning; If-by-whiskey: An example; Map-territory relation: Concept that words used to describe an underlying reality are arbitrary abstractions not to be confused with the reality itself; Mental reservation: A doctrine in moral theology; No true Scotsman: Changing a definition to exclude a counter ...
Creating a false dilemma (either-or fallacy) in which the situation is oversimplified, also called false dichotomy; Selectively using facts (card stacking) Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence or false analogy) Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization) (secundum quid)
CNN anchor Pamela Brown shut down Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s (R-Okla.) election comparison Thursday, saying the contrast he made between the 2016 and 2020 contests was a “false equivalence.”
The biconditional is true in two cases, where either both statements are true or both are false. The connective is biconditional (a statement of material equivalence), [2] and can be likened to the standard material conditional ("only if", equal to "if ... then") combined with its reverse ("if"); hence the name. The result is that the truth of ...
Gazans, Hamas see false equivalence in ICC charges. Nidal al-Mughrabi. May 20, 2024 at 12:14 PM. By Nidal al-Mughrabi.
Jeane Kirkpatrick, in her essay The Myth of Moral Equivalence (1986) [78] saw the Soviet Union's whataboutism as an attempt to use moral reasoning to present themselves as a legitimate superpower on an equal footing with the United States. The comparison was inadmissible in principle, since there was only one legitimate superpower, the USA, and ...