The fallacy of distinction without difference occurs when a person insists on a term over a synonym, even though there is no substantial difference in meaning. This can occur in political debates and advertising, and can distract from substantive issues.
Distinction without difference is a fallacy that often appears in philosophical or political debate. The basic version of the fallacy occurs when a person prefers or insists on a term over a synonym, even though there is no substantial difference in meaning between the two. The argument will typically claim that a nuanced distinction between two terms makes them incompatible as synonyms. While indeed a linguistic distinction may occur, if the generally accepted meaning of both terms is not changed by the distinction, the argument is creating a logical fallacy. This type of error is often a matter of political arguments.
Any term with exact synonyms can be a source of a distinction without a difference error. If a doctor insists that being called “physician” is superior to being called “medical” because it is closer to the original Greek term. In modern usage, however, physician and doctor are often used interchangeably and are not used to differentiate two separate types of physicians. Therefore, to say that being called a “doctor” is offensive and rude, while being called a “doctor” is correct and polite is a distinction without difference, since the meaning of the term is not changed by the word chosen.
Public debates are also known to have this error. Opposing factions are notorious for inventing negative terms that describe an opponent’s position or policy. Furthermore, thanks to tools such as polling data, politicians are largely aware of which terms generate a positive effect from a likely audience. A popular and common example that can quickly explain a person’s political position is if they refer to a tax that occurs on a transfer of property following the death of the owner as an “inheritance tax” or “death tax. While both terms refer to exactly the same legislation, the more frightening term “death tax” is preferred by opponents of the law, while the more sensitive “inheritance tax” is used by supporters.
In cases like the “inheritance tax/death” distinction without difference, both opponents may be guilty of both a logical fallacy and a manipulative political mood. By stressing the importance of distinction, using scary or softened terms, the audience can be distracted from the substance of a real debate. By ferociously arguing over the irrelevant distinction, it can also appear that opponents are trying to draw attention to the political theater rather than the substantive issues at the heart of the matter.
Advertising can also use the principles of distinction without any difference to market products. Sometimes, by doing something as simple as changing the color of a headache medicine from red to blue, a marketing campaign can claim that the product is new, improved, and better than before. Indeed, unless color plays a major role in whether or not the medicine works, the change has created a distinction, but not a material difference that affects an outcome.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
