Ignoring Differences / Denying Differences / Overlooking Differences / False Equivalence / Ignoring Differences / Greyness Fallacy / False Equivalence

False equivalence is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The logical fallacy of ignoring differences (or denying differences  / Overlooking Differences /  False Equivalence / Ignoring Differences / Greyness Fallacy / False Equivalence) occurs when differences are overlooked, ignored, or denied, resulting in faulty comparisons of various kinds. This can result in faulty analogy, equating opposites, or the package deal fallacy.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Ignoring Differences / Denying Differences / Overlooking Differences / False Equivalence / Ignoring Differences / Greyness Fallacy / False Equivalence

Bill Nye arguing against Creation science: "On CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science."

CSI TV show isn't much of an appeal to authority. The main problem, though, is that Bill Nye is overlooking the differences between historical and observational science. The difference has to do with assumptions. Observational science is based on observations and that which can be logically inferred from those observations. Historical science (and some other kinds of science) rely on either assumptions and stories or Divine revelation. The result is that a Secular Humanist and a Christian are very likely to come to opposite historical conclusions from exactly the same observations.

Observational science depends on observation. Historical science goes beyond observation using assumptions and stories. So, Bill’s conclusion is that there is no difference between observation and assumptions/stories. Is Bill right? If he is, then much of what Bill argues during the debate is valid. If assumptions of the majority are as valid as observation, then many of Bill’s claims that are based on assumptions are just as valid as observation.

Berkely Website: "Much as we might like to avoid it, all scientific tests involve making assumptions — many of them justified." The web page goes on to give examples of assumptions that are known, verifiable facts, not assumptions.

If those are assumptions, then everything that is known is an assumption and everything that is not known is also an assumption. In other words, the word, assumption no longer has a meaning because everything is an assumption. The difference between facts and assumptions has been obliterated.

It is understood that when evaluating logic, in order to make the logical argument easier to understand, only a single link in a chain of thought is evaluated at a time. Premises are assumed (for the moment) to be true. No differentiation is made between the two kinds of premises: those that cannot be tracked to an absolute and those that can be tracked to an absolute. That is a problem.