I’m not sure if there is a word that has this definition. If there isn’t perhaps we can come up with one.

The definition is this:

The false presumption that two opposing ideas, arguments or concepts are actually equal, based on the fact that the words being used to describe those ideas, are the same.

For example:

We have no direct evidence the god exists but all around us we see evidence that supports his existence and many people believe he exists on that basis.

and

We have no direct evidence that dark matter exists, but all around the universe there is evidence to support it’s existence and many scientists chose to believe in the theory even though it is unproven (facts only existing in the absence of falsifying evidence notwithstanding 😉 )

ergo

Science and religion are the same thing

or

Science is no more reliable a way of describing the universe than religion

or

Science is based on faith just as much as religion is.

Of course those conclusions are complete nonsense, hence the definition being the false presumption.

It came to me immediately.

ABSOBOLLOCKS.

😀

or like I think that the Eton Mess Muller corner is the best, while the wife thinks the Greek Style one with honey is best.

You can get Eton Mess Müller corners?

I think that the Eton Mess Muller corner is the best, while the wife thinks the Greek Style one with honey is best.

I’ve tried neither of them but there, surely is one of mankind’s unsolvable conundrums..
I’m without doubt one of humanity’s greatest thinkers, and there’s no way that even I could choose between those two phenomenal sounding taste sensations..

Oh yes. It’s a limited edition.

surely is one of mankind’s unsolvable conundrums.

To keep the peace, we tend to avoid talking about politics, religion or Muller corners.

we tend to avoid talking about politics, religion or Muller corners.

the path to true happiness perhaps..

I’m not sure if there is a word that has this definition.

It’s called a “straw man.”

The word’s a fallacy, or more precisely a logical fallacy.

Yes, like logical fallacy. Although I like the whole Muller Corner side track more!

Straw man is a flawed argumentative technique.

Logical fallacy is right, but it’s too broad a term.

Something to do with normative relativism maybe?

Ooh now molgrips I like that.

Really I think we need to come up with something and submit it for inclusion in the dictionary!

It is a logical fallacy (as is straw man) a list of logical fallacies is found here

The one you are looking for is called argument to moderation

I would like it to be a rule that anyone posting on STW reads and commits to memory the list of logical fallacies above. It would save a lot of crap.

It’s a lollacy.

Eton Mess Muller Corners? Now that’s a freakin’ miracle!!

Not sure there is a word for what you describe..its a non sequitor anyway so not sure we need one.

Sophist argument?
Species reasoning?

personally i would say it is the fallacy of equivocation

We have no direct evidence the god exists but all around us we see evidence that supports his existence and many people believe he exists on that basis.

and

We have no direct evidence that dark matter exists, but all around the universe there is evidence to support it’s existence and many scientists chose to believe in the theory even though it is unproven (facts only existing in the absence of falsifying evidence notwithstanding
The emboldened bit mean different things in each statement.

no direct evidence

– biblical means no proof science means lots of data and theories pointing to but an area of uncertainty that needs an answer and to be proved by observation an experimental methodology

evidence to support

we have a book of facts that is the literal word of god and true and i can give you a subjective opinion of this

Science…look at all this objective data I have that suggests

the words, though the same, actually mean different things

Bollocks, Junky is probs correct, I misread the original a hurry.
Equivocation is the fallacy of using a term with more than one meaning or sense.

Although hmmm, I dunno. Its like a substitution hang on I think I know what it is..

Beauty of fallacies even when we agree there is one the philosopher can still debate which one 😉

Actually I think the original statement is just bollocks.

Its like saying

1+ 1 = 2

4 + 9 = 11

Because both sentences have + and = in them then the rest must be identical therefore 2=11..

Beauty of fallacies even when we agree there is one the philosopher can still debate which one

Indeed.

Come on though, thinking caps on lads, lets work this out.

toys19 – Member
It is a logical fallacy (as is straw man) a list of logical fallacies is found here
The one you are looking for is called argument to moderation

toys19 – Member
I would like it to be a rule that anyone posting on STW reads and commits to memory the list of logical fallacies above. It would save a lot of crap.

Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions.

Opposites are, by definition, mutually exclusive and there is no argument being offered in the OP’s post towards a position of compromise between the two independent statements. This is not a case of either/or, proving one of the statements (however likely or unlikely) does not disprove the other.
His point is that they are not equivalent hypothesis so I’d suggest it’s closer to a situation of inconsistent comparison, but I could be wrong too.

You can certainly argue the premise is false

Yeah Loum I agree, see in my post above,

Bollocks, Junky is probs correct, I misread the original a hurry.

I accept that I misread the OP in haste and thought he was talking about moderation, which it obviously isnt any thing like that. Its much more like equivocation, although I like your inconsisitent comparism too.

Fallacious comparison?

Fair enough, toys.
Its not quite as per that wiki example, but IMO, the inconsistent comparison could possibly be applicable to the underlying data supporting the hypotheses, particullarly in relation to jy’s point about inequivalent evidence.

Actually I think the original statement is just bollocks.
Its like saying
1+ 1 = 2
4 + 9 = 11

That bit’s not logic, it’s assumption. Whether you’re right or wrong, using it invites other opinions which may differ.

No its a mistype I meant to type 4+9=13 !!!

Analogical syllogism?

That’ll do. It’s vaguely reasonable, and no-one will pull you up on it for fear of sounding thick.

Actually, analogical syllogism would be the concept of equating things that had the same form, correctly or otherwise. So your scenario would be fallacious analogicial syllogism.

I think the word that most commonly accompanies the OP’s scenario is ‘Wunundred’

Toys, that makes more sense now. I agree, mostly.
You’re sort of saying that the two arguments have different variables and different results.
However, I would suggest that your “1+1=2, and 4+9=13” are far more equivalent arguments than the OP’s original two, being based in the same precise language. Proving one could also lead to proving the other, they’re not unrelated or independent.

molgrips, can’t pull you up on that.

Actually I think the original statement is just bollocks.

No, that would be a phallusy.

No, that would be a phallusy.

I think you can pat yourself on the back for that one

(although if you can pat yourself on the back with it…….)