yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Can you outsmart the apples and oranges fallacy? - Elizabeth Cox


3m read
·Nov 8, 2024

Baking apple pie? Discount orange warehouse has you covered! A fruit’s a fruit, right?

It’s 1988, and scientist James Hansen has just testified to the United States Congress that global warming trends are caused by human activity, and will pose an increasing threat to humanity in the future. Well, well. That’s unusually prescient for a human.

Looking for a wedding dress? Try a new take on a timeless classic. It’s sleek, flattering and modest—just like the traditional dress. Commercials. Could anything be more insufferable?

It’s 1997, and the United States Senate has called a hearing about global warming. Some expert witnesses point out that past periods in Earth’s history were warmer than the 20th century. Because such variations existed long before humans, the witnesses claim the current warming trend is also the result of natural variation.

Ah, there is something more insufferable than a commercial. Luckily for the humans, there’s one more expert witness. What are you looking at? We’re all dressed. At least we are by the logic you just used.

It’s as if you were to say apples and oranges are both fruits, therefore they taste the same. Or that underwear, wedding dresses, and suits are all clothes, therefore, they’re all equally appropriate attire for a Senate hearing. The European wars of the 19th century and World War I were all wars, right? So World War I couldn’t be any more devastating than those other wars, could it?

Let’s say two people have a fever. They must have the same disease that’s causing that fever, right? Of course not. One fever could be caused by chicken pox, the other by influenza, or any number of other infections.

Like your claim about rising global temperatures, these claims make a false analogy. You're assuming that because two phenomena share a characteristic, in this case warming, they are analogous in other ways, like the cause of that warming. But there’s no evidence that that’s the case.

Yes, there have been other warm periods in Earth’s history—no one’s disputing that the climate fluctuates. But let's take a closer look at some of those older examples of global warming, shall we?

The Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse, 92 million years ago, was so warm, forests covered Antarctica. Volcanic activity was likely responsible for boosting atmospheric carbon dioxide and creating a greenhouse effect. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago, was so warm, crocodiles swam the waters of the Arctic Circle.

This warming may have been caused by the drying of inland seas and release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from ocean sediments. Even among these other warm periods, you’re making a false analogy. Yes, they had natural causes. But each had a different cause, and involved a different amount and duration of warming.

They’re as dissimilar as they are similar. Taking them together, all we can reasonably conclude is that the Earth’s climate seems to change in response to conditions on the planet.

Today, human activity is a dominant force shaping conditions on your planet, so the possibility that it’s driving global warming can’t be dismissed out of hand.

I’ll grant that the more complicated something is, the easier it is to make a mistaken analogy. That’s especially true because there are many different types of false analogy: that similar symptoms must share a cause, that similar actions must lead to similar consequences, and countless others.

Most false analogies you’ll come across are far less obvious than those comparing apples to oranges, and climate is notoriously complex. It requires careful, rigorous study and evidence collection—and making a false analogy like this only impedes that process.

It’s 2013, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found, aggregating decades of research, that there is more than a 95% chance the global warming trend since the mid-20th century has been driven by human activity, namely the burning of fossil fuels.

You’re both pets, and he likes living in water, so you should, too.

More Articles

View All
Homeroom with Sal & Arne Duncan - Wednesday, October 14
Hi everyone! Welcome to the homeroom live stream. Uh, we have a really exciting conversation today with Secretary Arne Duncan, uh, Secretary of Education under Barack Obama. Uh, but before we get into that, I will give my standard of announcements. Uh, f…
THE JUMP BATTLE!!!
Dude, I got an idea! I challenged you to a jump off. A jump off? What the heck’s a jump off? There’s not much to it! Watch this. The [Music] bucket. Is that all there is to a jump off? Wheelbarrow! Yeah, you think you’re something? How about this? Two …
LearnStorm Growth Mindset: Dr. Michael Merzenich on growing your brain
But we’ve actually trained athletes, you could say, on the sort of academic side of training you would not necessarily imagine. And guess what? It improves our performance on the field. What’s happening for a couple of reasons. One reason is that you’re …
Beautiful Animation Shows What It's Like to Be Homesick in a New Country | Short Film Showcase
Every spring, my mom used to plant boxes of violets and propagate the geranium she’s been growing for years in a small garden on a balcony in Tehran. I remember her telling me, “When you move a plant from one place to another, you need to give it some tim…
Robinhood CEO GRILLED by Elon Musk Over Gamestop Controversy (Full ClubHouse Interview)
All right, well, it’s full of beans, man. What happened last week? Why do you, uh, stop here? Why can’t people buy the GameStop shares? The people demand an answer, and they want to know the details and the truth. Yep, yep, um. [Music] Hey guys, welcome…
Worked examples: Definite integral properties 2 | AP Calculus AB | Khan Academy
So what we’re going to do in this video is several examples where we evaluate expressions with definite integrals. Right over here we have the definite integral from -2 to 3 of 2 F of x DX plus the definite integral from 3 to 7 of 3 F of x DX. All we know…