Talk:False equivalence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"George Floyd protests vs. January 6th United States capitol protests." probably is not a good example of a false equivalence[edit]

The quoted text is not making any logical argument, it's not even a sentence, thus it cannot reflect a 'false equivalence' since that statement is not making any equivalence to begin with. We could argue (and the source points to that) that we should avoid making comparisons between the George Floyd protests and January 6th protests, but, due to the given arguments, the quoted text per se it is not a false equivalence.

More important, the article used by the example is a primary source, not a secondary one. That article is not citing any other work but experts. Because of that, I think the example should be eliminated.

Elungidodedios (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Elungidodedios, welcome to Wikipedia. I fixed the incomplete sentence problem. The cited source is not a primary source. The argument makes sense and belongs as an example. --evrik (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the clarification. However, I still think that the example is a little bit wacky for various reasons. First, I just checked the source article and it seems that the phrase you are quoting with marks " " is not present in the original article. In fact, it seems that in the article any of the interviewed experts are talking about a Logical False Equivalence per se, it's the author themselves that labels the discussion as a false equivalence. Chocking enough 'False Equivalence' is only used in the tittle of the piece. We can interpret that the experts are saying that there is a false equivalence, but we could also interpret that they're saying that the events are not the same in terms of moral.
    Based on that, it seems that the example that you are giving is not even referencing a primary source, but it's an original contribution, and it's using the title of the original article (not the article, that is a report on expert opinions rather that a document discussing false e1quivalnce) as a way to justify the point. For instance, one of the reasons that the example is giving to justify the label is because one was protest and the other an insurrection, but it seems according to this article in Time Magazine that there is not consensus in whether JAN 6 was in fact an insurrection.
    In resume, we could agree in this resume of the facts:
    1) the phrase quoted as example is an original contribution that is not in the cited text (this is really important, because the quoting suggests that someone in the article is explicitly saying that the quoted phrase is a false equivalence, and it's not the case since that phrase is not in text)
    2) the author of the piece, and not the experts and ADVOCATES interviewed, is the one explicitly labeling the discussion as 'false equivalence' (hence, the primary source comment; the author did bother to quote partialized individuals in addition, but only from one side...)
    3) the source on the example is not discussing false equivalences from logical-philosophical point (it's an general information piece)
    and 4) one the arguments used to explain why is a false equivalence, the one about the insurrection [see the shared link in Time Magazine, has not consensus, it's in doubt (probably because it is a original contribution and not a referenced source).
    Given how False Equivalence can lead to confirmation bias and other cognitive dissonances, making it a tricky 'fancy' word, I would expect examples in the topic to come from a neutral source discussing the topic itself, rather than from an article about two controversial events very linked to American politics (not even World politics). It is very probable that, in fact, there is a false equivalence in that very interesting discussion, but I think it needs to be supported by better references. And in any case, the best examples should not come from long articles saying that an X comparison is a false equivalence, but from articles discussing false equivalences written by experts in logical fallacies, in order reduce to potential bias in the examples.
    Elungidodedios (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can get a number of sources ,that make the point, here is one, "The GOP has become the party of false equivalences".--evrik (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is another article citing opinions on the situation though, and the title quote for the article isn't sourced from any kind of analysis or discussion, but an off the cuff remark quoted from a professor at Rutgers University. Not only that, but the remarks is not on the event itself, but the Republican Party in general. You can find plenty of opinion pieces online claiming that the January 6th riots were not an insurrection, and vice versa. The fact that this is such a charged issue that is linked to recent political events and is still being actively discussed debated should disqualify it from being used as an objective example of a false equivalency. It seems from the outside looking in that you're using a Wikipedia article on a logical fallacy in order to promote a narrative ("That's a false equivalency, look, it's even listed as one of the examples on the Wikipedia article for false equivalencies"). The fact that this can even be debated should disqualify it from being used as an objective example. 70.121.186.191 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the second source[edit]

Although the new source is an improvement to the original one, the example need to be edited to address the same issues I already presented.
  • Point number 1, people in the article is saying that the GOP is comparing both events and that that is a false equivalence. Again, it's impossible to quote the false equivalence argument posted as example '"George Floyd protests were the same as the January 6th United States capitol protests."' directly from the source, hence the example keeps being an interpretation of the source rather than an example taken from the source.
  • Point 2, The only people sourced are people related to the BLM movement that are denouncing the comparison, so the example should reflect this.
  • Point 3 and 4, exactly the same. This article is not about false equivalence, but rather about an event that some partial population is labeling as such. And worst, the explanation of why this is a false equivalence about insurrection vs protest keeps being partial, since that we are not sure JAN 6 events were an insurrection according to this article
  • Finally quantity of the source is not equivalence to quality, as you are are suggesting ("I can get a number of sources ,that make the point", I quote you).

To resolve these issue I will recommend this edit based on the new source:

“You can moan and groan, but he was far more explicit about his calls for peace than some of the BLM and left-wing rioters were this summer when we saw violence sweep across this nation” said by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida addressing the House before the 232-197 vote to impeach the president Trump for inciting the 2021 United States Capitol attack is an an example of False Equivalence, according to a diverse number of social scientists, and civil rights experts and activities (some of them related to the 'Black Lives Matter' movement); they considered invalid the comparison due to different reasons including nature of the protests and the objectives of the movements (that is, the violent nature of the Capitol attack and their intentions to overthrown the results of a democratic election process vs. the fight for civil rights for the Afro-American population (source 1).

Here I'm quoting the argument directly from the source and I am giving it context. Still, I find the example too cumbersome. I think internet is full or more fitting examples, easier to understand and that are explained in the context of logical fallacies, rather than in it's social-political context. In short, to understand this particle example people should be learned in American Politics and Social issues. Notwithstanding, I really think that examples should be as clear as possible, and they should come from a source discussing the concept as it is, rather than an article when the concept is being used to label important political events.

In the other hand, I do find the sources interesting and it is a valid discussion, but they should be used to support an article about the discussion not as a source to make a factual exemplification, in my opinion. I would recommend creating a new section in the article 2021 United States Capitol attack discussing this issue called "Comparison with the BLM movement" in the part of the aftermath or another section, and there we could add these reference explaining why people from the BLM and other civil rights movements and some experts (that maybe are allied to the movement anyways), express discomfort with the comparison; [valid discomfort in my opinion]).

Elungidodedios (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New section? Go for it. --evrik (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the place?[edit]

I would like to, for my part, set aside all concerns about source validity, and just raise my concern that this example of a false equivalence, true or not, is unnecessarily divisive and contentious for this wikipedia article. Both the protests occurring after the death of George Floyd, and the events around the U.S. Capitol on January 6, are highly politicized topics, and their use here as an example feels excessively specific or targeted. In other words I would posit that there are much easier and less controversial examples usable in this article, and that if replaced, this non-political article would have less political content and would not lose any quality as a result of such replacement. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I know that this sentiment has been raised before me above, but it is enmired with other discussion about partiality and validity of sources. The discussions above also seem to not have very much in the way of a multi-party dialogue, and show little progress towards a consensus. Hence I want to raise this issue again since it has lain dormant for a week with no apparent consensus reached as the example in question is still being actively protected. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it may be contentious is not an issue. Many pages here are contentious. It is relevant and it is cited. Perhaps you should start and RFC? --evrik (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on appropriateness of George Floyd Protests v. January 6 Protest example[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The rough consensus is to remove the example regarding the George Floyd protests and the 2021 United States Capitol attack. A clear majority of editors in this discussion—including some in the "keep" camp—expressed some reservations about the use of this example. In particular, a common theme was that because the content references a political controversy, it may not be a good example for readers understand what a "false equivalence" is. Another concern was regarding WP:NOR (i.e. asserting a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice without citing a reliable source that explicitly draws the same conclusion), although that concern appears to have been partly resolved midway through the discussion when a few editors provided links to sources that have explicitly referred to the example as a "false equivalence". Finally, some editors expressed WP:NPOV concerns: some editors felt that we should be attributing the examples to their specific sources instead of describing them in Wikipedia's voice as definitive examples of false equivalence. Some editors stated that we should remove or replace all the current examples—I don't see a clear consensus either way for that in this discussion, but that could be something to discuss in a follow-up discussion. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the example regarding the George Floyd protests and Jan. 6 protests too political/controversial for this article, regardless of veracity? GabberFlasted (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware Religion and philosophy isn't an ideal topic designation, but none seem to fit this topic, and the article is under wikiproject philosophy GabberFlasted (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The statement is relevant and it is cited. --evrik (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - overall it is supported, but it would certainly be better to find a less political, less modern example. The structure could be improved to explain the sources, for example, "Some Republicans in the US congress have drawn comparisons between... This was deemed as false equivalence by several media outlets, such as ABC News." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace: Not sure how invoking the U.S.'s two most emotionally inflammatory recent events aids pedagogy. Let's teach little Timmy how to count: one mommy plus one daddy equals two parents, except not for Timmy because his parents are divorced! To address points above, a well-sourced example would be an academic stating "An example of a false equivalence is X". A written legal opinion is a pretty decent source for philosophy, but oral arguments are less so. And also either the oil spill or the cat one should be replaced with a better example, because both are equivalences of scale.
  • Against Both events are complicated. There are probably many similarities AND differences. Falsely equating "naturally derived" with being "healthy" may be a less controversial example. Senorangel (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke or rewrite all examples, I find them WP:ORish. Who says this is false equivalence? This is doubly problematic in the light of WP:NPOV when we use controversial examples. Unless said examples are so famous as to deserve stand-alone articles or at least attract WP:SIGCOV coverage, I'd remove them all, and instead have an example about apples and oranges or such - although frankly, even such example should be attributed. Ex. "Professor Smith, in his book on rhetoric, provided the following example of "false equivalence": blah blah apples blah blah oranges [ref]."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The only example that has a source that mentions "False equivalence" is actually the George Floyd one with citation 12 [1]. ––FormalDude talk 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
Hmmm, then I guess it can stay, if properly attributed to Judge Tanya Chutkan Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tanya Chutkan was added. --evrik (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am fine keeping this example. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article shouldn't say in wikivoice that the "following statements are examples of false equivalence" but rather that they have been described as such. Alaexis¿question? 05:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think we should weigh political controversy over veracity in the first place. As pointed out above though, the whole section needs reworking for OR. ––FormalDude talk 17:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just rewrote the "Characteristics" and "Examples" section. I removed the OR tag. There are three examples. They are all straightforward, and examples of different kinds of fallacies. I found direct citations on the differences of cats, and civil unrest. I didn't find a cite on oil spills, but that too is straightforward. --evrik (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Piotrus. This example is clearly controversial, so why use it as an example here? Alaexis¿question? 11:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what Piotrus said. --evrik (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it wasn't. Although I do think we could use more non-controversial examples. As for this one, did anyone disputed this example with regards to it being a false equivalence? In other words, is this a controversial example, or an example about a controversy? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a valid real-world example of false equivalence. The court case is a reliable source. Perhaps we should quote the judge in the body of the article because Judge Tanya Chutkan cogently explains why comparing the events constitutes false equivalence. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 15:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik: I'm not sure if you are addressing me. But if so I am reluctant to edit part of an article that is the subject of a current RfC. The judge's quote is in the reference and can easily be moved to the body of the article if we achieve consensus on the question. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 00:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add better: Can I avoid politics and request more educational writings directly about false equivalence as the topic which provides examples and explanations specifying why it is false, preferably from sources authoritative in this field of logic or philosophy? A section of popular uses of the phrase may be good by WEIGHT, but this doesn’t necessarily help someone understand False equivalence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More and improved explanations with citations to academic literature will help this article. Be bold and improve the article accordingly. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 00:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try, although I also note the WEIGHT issue that even in the U.K. the common usage seems as a rhetorical device in politics. Either one politician makes a comparison and another tries to discredit it with this framing (such as Beergate vs Party-gate) or to criticise editorial policy to do impartial coverage at BBC and Ofcom (such as climate change vs deniers) as creating such. In short, while I want better understanding of the term and more academically authoritative source added, I’m thinking even if I find such it may be problematic if it does not fit much greater WEIGHT is in a popular usage or example someone wants. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This piece has lots of room for expansion.--evrik (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Markworthen - I have looked into a half-dozen technical texts, avoiding politics or journalism, and now think my desire for a logic or philosophy source was invalid as the phrase is not used there.
Propositional logic (i.e. Schaums outline by Nolt) goes in depth about Equivalence but not ‘false’ ones. Closest I saw was Boolean equivalence (i.e. Logic demystified by Boutelle) where True and False or 1 and 0 are just terms for the mathematical values.
Philosophy (i.e. Logic by Cryan) was more about ways of reasoning than how to do it wrong. Closest I found was for ‘lame’ comparison in historical comparisons (i.e. Apples and oranges by Asscher) which praises comparisons as being informative though inherently flawed. (He felt drawing such parallels an interesting and informative vehicle for discussion, exposing how someone is approaching a subject, where people object to it to it, and identifying outcomes.)
Rhetoric consideration of bad arguments (i.e. Mastering Logical Fallacies by Zhang) did not come any closer than False Analogy. I did see a number of Fallacies not in the category list at the article bottom, such as 18 types of ‘Appeal to’ argument, so human brains apparently are depressingly rubbish for logic.
So I retract my earlier ignorant wish for technical sources. Sorry about that. Markbassett (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Replace per WP:WIKIVOICE. We avoid stating opinions as facts no matter what. Some mainstream right-wing sources might disagree with the sources, however scarce they may be. I would recommend using a less controversial example. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikivoice has nothing to do with this, as does the reaction from right wing media. That kinds of censorship is not appropriate here. --evrik (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the entire examples section Lists of examples in articles like this are a magnet for undue content and OR. Since there's no criteria beyond "was described as false equivalence in a RS" we'll just end up with an arbitrary collection of newspaper articles and op-eds. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with abstract examples False equivalence is an informal fallacy. That means it depends on the way in which the comparison is drawn to determine whether it is or is not false. If this were not the case, it would be literally impossible to qualitatively compare anything at all, ever. The January 6th similar and the George Floyd protests were similar in that they were both political protests trying to accomplish some political aim. It would not be fallacious to compare them in this way. They are not the same in their motivation or ramification, to compare them in that sense would be a false equivalence. I'm voting to torpedo contentious real life examples because wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. America is deeply divided on how to qualitatively assess the January 6th protests. Per WP:DUE, a page on fallacies should avoid WP:RECENTISM. BrigadierG (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I think the way to choose examples here should be to optimise for being non-controversial. We should aim for a small number of the least controversial examples possible. Natural vs healthy was floated above. Legal vs moral I think is another one (ie, stealing a loaf of bread to survive isn't the same as a con artist stealing lots of money from a vulnerable person). BrigadierG (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree, although I think it would be ok to list an example of a controversy about what is or isn't false equivalence too. But I am still unsure if this was ever challenged as a bad example. Isn't the problem mainly that it is a statement about a controversy? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't list every false equivalence, and we probably shouldn't list random false equivalences. When figuring out what to include, we should aim to be understood by as many people as possible while still covering the material. That means staying away from examples that are excessively academic and might not be understood fully, and also staying away from false equivalences that are likely to be contested. If there is an option to choose a more controversial or less controversial example, we should choose the less controversial one because it is the most likely to be understood (as the reader is less likely to be on the other side). BrigadierG (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The idea of using court judgements to provide examples of logical fallacies strikes me as odd. Why? Alaexis¿question? 05:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • it's discussed above, and I think you commented on it. --evrik (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marijuana[edit]

I'm not sure the wrding of the marijuana example is accurate. Unsure how to improve it. -evrik

  • While either can lead to future dependence, consuming heroin is more likely to do so than taking marijuana. Senorangel (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it's not worded ideally. I'd suggest reading the source I added which goes into more depth. Would welcome a rephrase BrigadierG (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that people minimize rationalize the use of MJ as its not as bad a heroin. --evrik (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalence and Association fallacy[edit]

Am I misreading both pages, or are False equivalence and Association fallacy the same thing? I don't know enough about formal logic to know whether I'm in error here. --Rob Kelk 15:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related concepts, but not identical. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_equivalence&oldid=1201910773"