Can you outsmart the apples and oranges fallacy Elizabeth Cox

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.

烤苹果派?
优惠橙仓有你!

水果就是水果,对吧?

1988 年,科学家詹姆斯·汉森
刚刚

向美国国会
作证,全球变暖趋势

是由人类活动

引起的,未来将对人类构成越来越大的
威胁。

好吧。
这对人类来说是异乎寻常的先见之明。

寻找婚纱?
尝试对永恒经典的全新演绎。

它时尚、讨人喜欢且谦虚——
就像传统服饰一样。

广告。
还有什么比这更令人难以忍受的吗?

1997 年,美国
参议院召集了一场关于全球变暖的听证会。

一些专家证人指出
,地球历史上的过去时期

比 20 世纪更温暖。

由于这种变化
早在人类之前就已经存在

,目击者声称目前的
变暖趋势

也是自然变化的结果。

啊,还有比广告更让人难以忍受的事情

对人类来说幸运的是,
还有一位专家证人。

你在看什么?
我们都穿好了。

至少我们是按照
你刚才使用的逻辑。

就好像你说
苹果和橙子都是水果,

所以它们的味道是一样的。

或者内衣、婚纱
和西装都是衣服,

因此,它们都同样
适合参议院听证会。

19世纪的欧洲战争
和第一次世界大战都是战争,对吧?

所以第一次世界大战不会
比其他战争更具破坏性,不是

吗?

假设有两个人发烧。

他们一定患有引起发烧的相同疾病
,对吗?

当然不是。
一种发烧可能是由水痘引起的

,另一种是由流感
或其他任何感染引起的。

就像你关于全球气温上升的说法一样

这些说法是一个错误的类比。

你假设因为两种现象
有一个共同的特征,

在这种情况下变暖,
它们在其他方面是相似

的,比如变暖的原因。

但没有证据
表明情况确实如此。

是的,
地球历史上还有其他温暖时期——

没有人质疑气候的
波动。

但是,让我们仔细看看
那些较早的全球变暖例子

,好吗?

9200万年前

的白垩纪高温温室非常温暖,
森林覆盖了南极洲。

火山活动可能是
导致大气中二氧化碳增加

并产生温室效应的原因。

5500万年前的古新世-始新世热最大值

非常温暖,鳄鱼在北极圈的水域
中游弋。

这种变暖可能是由于
内陆海域的干燥

和海洋沉积物中甲烷(
一种强效温室气体)

的释放造成的。

即使在这些其他温暖时期,
你也在做一个错误的类比。

是的,它们有自然原因。

但每个都有不同的原因,

并且涉及不同
的变暖量和持续时间。

它们既不同又相似。

把它们放在一起
,我们可以合理地

得出结论,地球的气候
似乎会随着

地球上的条件而变化。

今天,人类活动是
塑造地球环境的主导力量,

因此它推动全球变暖的可能性

不容忽视。

我承认,事情越复杂

,就越容易
做出错误的类比。

尤其如此,因为有
许多不同类型的错误类比

:类似的症状必须有一个原因

,类似的行为必须导致类似的
后果,以及无数其他的。

你会遇到的大多数错误类比

不如将苹果和橙子类比那么明显,
而且气候是出了名的复杂。

它需要仔细、严格的研究
和证据收集——

像这样做出错误的类比
只会阻碍这一过程。

现在是 2013 年,联合国
政府间气候变化专门委员会

汇总数十年的研究

发现,自 20 世纪中叶以来,全球变暖趋势有 95% 以上的
可能性是

由人类活动驱动的,

即燃烧 化石燃料。

你们都是宠物

,他喜欢生活在水中,
所以你也应该这样做。