Phantom distinction

Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

* Logical fallacy
* Syllogism
* Argument

General logic

* Point refuted a thousand times
* Appeal to faith
* DARVO
* Fact
* Apelo à fé
* Argument from etymology

Bad logic

* Selection bias
* Overgeneralization
* Spotlight fallacy
* Weasel word
* DARVO
* One of the good ones

v \- t \- e

A phantom distinction is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone spends time arguing for the superiority of one term over another (rather than the intended debate), yet there is no effective difference between the two terms or in the final result of the argument. The substitution of words is often made because one word has emotional connotations, or an established history. This fallacy is the opposite of equivocation (where two different words are treated as the same) and is a parent of the masked man fallacy.

The fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity (because it blurs the line between words) and an informal fallacy.

Carl Schmitt (1888–1985), a (literal) Nazi philosopher, recognized that a political distinction between friends (those to care for and by whom to be cared for) and enemies (everyone else) can be very arbitrary; even without any semblance of logic or reasoning, they persist and propagate as long as the populace believes them. Considering what happened because of those distinctions in Schmitt's time, it is probably wise to pay very close attention to, and relentlessly question, linguistic distinctions between different groups of people now, especially when one is said, implied, or connotated to be better than the other.

## Contents

* 1 Alternate names
* 2 Form
* 3 Examples
* 3.1 Specific people examples
* 3.2 Unintentional examples
* 4 Exception
* 5 External links
* 6 References

## Alternate names[edit]

* distinction without a difference
* difference without a distinction
* phantom difference
* sham difference
* sham distinction

## Form[edit]

This fallacy occurs whenever the three following beliefs are present:

1. X (using term 1) is preferable over Y (using term 2).
2. X is true.
3. Y is not true.

## Examples[edit]

* Instead of saying "A", why not say "the first letter of the alphabet"?
* Before we condemn violence used to promote a social agenda, we must remember the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists.
* "Creationism" is a word with a history, and thus many anti-evolutionists want to avoid the "Creationist" label (preferring intelligent design), even if they use the same ideas, the same arguments, and come to the same conclusions.
* I believe Western countries should be for white people only and want to purge them of Jews, homosexuals, feminists, and ~~cultural Bolsheviks~~ cultural Marxists, but I'm not a Nazi.
* In music, equal-step tunings are said to be dividing (or multiplying where it makes sense) the simplest harmonic ratio they have in preference to any other equally-valid possibility.
* Equality of steps in tunings with 600 or more steps per 13 octaves cannot really be said to make them "better" or "worse" because they cannot have a very material noticeable difference, to the human ear, from pure rational intervals either way.
* 432Hz and the Solfeggio frequencies blur the distinction between the absolute concert pitch (not really important to humans) and the relative pitches tuned against it (very important).
* Xiangqi systematically uses ideograms to connote the superiority of the red pieces over the blacks even though the two armies have identical abilities of movement.
* In the card game Preference and its clones, there is a fixed hierarchy between suit contracts which are equally difficult to actually win by the respective definition of each given game.
* Occasionally in Coinche in particular among Jass games, "all trump" also beats "no trump" when the only operational difference between them is whether the suits play as if trump suits or not.
* I'm no vegetarian, but I (generally) do not eat the animals this buffet is serving (might be not fallacious depending on the buffet and its meat standards).
* I won't openly admit when my preferred alternative media are faking the news, but the mainstream media don't really report facts about what I'm emotionally attached to either, they just lie about that in their own way (applies only when stated without evidence, which is a case for most of such statements).
* I already don't follow [insert "categorically biased" media outlet here] as a rule, but I'll say I'm boycotting them in order to appear to be sticking something to them.
* The White House didn't lie about the size of the crowd on Inauguration Day, they gave alternative facts.
* I'm not a white supremacist, I'm a white nationalist.
* In the United States, the same two major parties contest offices in constitutionally "separate" branches of the government.
* Metaphysical naturalism effectively removes the difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
* Determinism occasionally means effectively removing the difference between contingency and Libertarian Free will.
* Astrology isn’t indeterminism, it just posits a mystical determinant for human behavior.
* I have no enemies, most of my friends just think they’re more important to themselves than I am./I’m nobody’s enemy, I just think I’m more important to myself than my friends.
* They're not called the CCP, They're called the CPC.

In legal terminology, a "distinction without a difference" is more specific; it means a change in definitions which does not change the set which is defined. For example, changing "unseparated married men" to "males who have a non-separated spouse" is a distinction without a difference. The same goes for David Wynn Miller stylizing his name as :David-Wynn: Miller, and various other sovereign citizen/freeman on the land schemes to try to evade the law.

### Specific people examples[edit]

* Hans Asperger: Wasn't a Nazi, but did support them, joined several related organizations, and helped with euthanizing children.

### Unintentional examples[edit]

* Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Though it fixes a phantom distinction in Jung’s original theory (both objective preferences are “Introversion/Extraversion”), the "Sensing", "Feeling", and "Perceiving" personality types are supposed to be related to different cognitive functions but Myers and Briggs have kept a sloppy word choice from the same theory[1] and they appear not to mean entirely different things ("Sensing" comes form part of sentiō, which means "to feel" in Latin and "Perceiving" can just be a more sophisticated word for the five senses). However, the difference of these proposed cognitive functions ironically doesn't matter anyway because the cognitive functions themselves are judged construct invalid perhaps in part for not being the aspect which correlates most strongly to the more reliable Five-Factor Model which is the basis of the NEO PI-R and its clones, although the way the studies judged this becomes itself erroneous upon examination of exactly what they found as both traits Neuroticism and Extraversion were judged to correlate most strongly to Intraversion-Extraversion but cancel each other out and make Openness (to experience) to Sensing-iNtuitive the real strongest correlation between the two personality inventories though it is doubtful whether Openness (to experience) to Sensing-iNtuitive is a strict one-one correlation.[2]
* “16” personalities: Though it fixes phantom distinctions both in MBTI itself (it renames "Sensing" and "Perceiving" to “obServant” and “Prospecting”) and created by correlation between MBTI and the more reliable Five-Factor Model (both traits Neuroticism and Extraversion were judged to correlate most strongly to Intraversion-Extraversion but cancel each other out), it uses bad initials for the new scale correlated one-to-one with trait Neuroticism which make the distinction between traits Neuroticism and Agreeableness appear false.

## Exception[edit]

When used for emphasis, preferring one term over another may be relevant. (e.g., a coach tells his players that he doesn't want them to kick the ball, but to KICK the ball.)

Alternately, certain terms may (while functionally the same) have emotional, political, or social connotations. For example, a "shit" may be different from a "turd" only in how people perceive it, but in a significant way. Other emotionally-charged words, often slurs or obscenities, fall into this category.

## External links[edit]

* See the Wikipedia article on Distinction without a difference.
* "Phantom Distinction", Bruce Thompson
* Logical Fallacy of Distinction Without a Difference, SeekFind.net
* "DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE", Logically Fallacious

## References[edit]

1. ↑ See e. g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator
2. ↑ See https://jfdeschamps.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/correl-ocean-mbti-furnham-2003-6p.pdf for specific numbers

v \- t \- e

Articles about logical fallacies

Informal fallacies: |  Appeal to tradition • Appeal to novelty • Appeal to nature • Argument from morality • Argumentum ad martyrdom • Big words • Certum est quia impossibile est • Morton's fork • Friend argument • Exception that proves the rule • Extended analogy • Hindsight bias • Race card • Moralistic fallacy • Release the data • Gish Gallop • Terrorism-baiting • Uncertainty tactic • Greece-baiting • Ham Hightail • Red-baiting • Gore's Law • Nazi analogies • Mistaking the map for the territory • Red herring • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Presentism • Sunk cost • Two wrongs make a right • Flying carpet fallacy • My enemy's enemy • Appeal to ancient wisdom • Danth's Law • Argumentum ad lunam • Balance fallacy • Golden hammer • Loaded question • Escape to the future • Word magic • Spider-Man fallacy • Sanctioning the devil • Appeal to mystery • Informal fallacy • Common sense • Post-designation • Hyperbole • Relativist fallacy • Due diligence • Straw man • Good old days • Appeal to probability • Infinite regress • Circular reasoning • Media was wrong before • Is–ought problem • Ad iram • Just asking questions • Pink-baiting • Appeal to faith • Appeal to fear • Appeal to bias • Appeal to confidence • Appeal to consequences • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to flattery • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to hate • Argument from omniscience • Argument from silence • Argumentum ad baculum • Argumentum ad fastidium • Association fallacy • Broken window fallacy • Category mistake • Confounding factor • Counterfactual fallacy • Courtier's Reply • Damning with faint praise • Definitional fallacies • Equivocation • Fallacy of accent • Fallacy of accident • Fallacy of amphiboly • Gambler's fallacy • Imprecision fallacy • Moving the goalposts • Nirvana fallacy • Overprecision • Pathos gambit • Pragmatic fallacy • Quote mining • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Science doesn't know everything • Slothful induction • Spotlight fallacy • Style over substance • Toupee fallacy • Genuine but insignificant cause • Argument from incredulity • Appeal to age • Argumentum ad nauseam • Appeal to common sense • Argumentum ad hysteria • Omnipotence paradox • Argument from etymology • Appeal to trauma • Countless counterfeits fallacy •
| Ad hoc: |  No True Scotsman • Moving the goalposts • Escape hatch • Handwave • Special pleading • Slothful induction • Nirvana fallacy • God of the gaps • PIDOOMA • Ad hoc • Tone argument •
| Arguments from ignorance: |  Science doesn't know everything • Argument from incredulity • Argument from silence • Toupee fallacy • Appeal to censorship • Science was wrong before • Holmesian fallacy • Argument from omniscience • Willful ignorance • Argument from ignorance •
| Causation fallacies: |  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc • Correlation does not imply causation • Wrong direction • Counterfactual fallacy • Regression fallacy • Gambler's fallacy • Denying the antecedent • Genuine but insignificant cause •
| Circular reasoning: |  Infinite regress • Argument by assertion • Argumentum ad dictionarium • Appeal to faith • Circular reasoning • Self-refuting idea •
| Emotional appeals: |  Appeal to fear • Appeal to emotion • Appeal to confidence • Deepity • Argumentum ad baculum • Appeal to shame • Appeal to flattery • Tone argument • Appeal to money • Argumentum ad fastidium • Appeal to gravity • Appeal to consequences • Loaded language • Style over substance • Appeal to pity • Appeal to hate • Pathos gambit • Shaming • Degenerate • Abomination •
| Fallacies of ambiguity: |  Fallacy of accent • Equivocation • Fallacy of amphiboly • Quote mining • Fallacy of ambiguity • Moral equivalence • Scope fallacy • Suppressed correlative • Not as bad as • Etymology • Continuum fallacy • Wronger than wrong • Definitional fallacies • Code word •
Formal fallacies: |  Confusion of the inverse • Denying the antecedent • Non sequitur • Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise • Not even wrong • Chewbacca Defense • Affirming a disjunct • Illicit process • Four-term fallacy • Negative conclusion from affirmative premises • Fallacy fallacy • Substituting explanation for premise • Enthymeme • Syllogism • Formal fallacy • Existential assumption • Masked man fallacy • Self-refuting idea • Argument by gibberish • One single proof • Affirming the consequent • False dilemma • Conjunction fallacy •
Fallacious arguments: |  Bumblebee argument • Fatwa envy • Gotcha argument • Hoyle's fallacy • Intuition pump • Logic and Creation • Not Circular Reasoning • Peanut butter argument • Great Beethoven fallacy • Fallacy of unique founding conditions • Evil is the absence of God • Argument from first cause • How do you know? Were you there? • Argument from design • Argument from beauty • Appeal to nature • Solferino fallacy • Religious scientists • Nothing to hide • Argument from fine tuning • Creep shaming • "I used to be an atheist" • Atheism as a religion • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from morality • Anti-environmentalism • Appeal to bias • Apophasis • Argumentum ad nauseam • Appeal to censorship • Argumentum ad sarcina inserta • Blaming the victim • Bait-and-switch • Danth's Law • Chewbacca Defense • Canard • DARVO • Demonization • Escape hatch • Friend argument • Everyone is racist • Gish Gallop • Greece-baiting • Gore's Law • Ham Hightail • Just asking questions • Leading question • Loaded language • Linking to authority • Loaded question • Lying by omission • Motte and bailey • Nazi analogies • Moving the goalposts • One single proof • Pink-baiting • One-way hash argument • Pathos gambit • Quote mining • Poisoning the well • Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur • Race card • Red-baiting • Red herring • Release the data • Science was wrong before • Shill gambit • Straw man • Silent Majority • Uncertainty tactic • Style over substance • Terrorism-baiting • Weasel word • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Whataboutism • Bullshit • Logical fallacy • Banana argument • Scapegoat • How come there are still monkeys? • Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white • Ontological argument • Omnipotence paradox • Presuppositionalism • Just a joke • Countless counterfeits fallacy •
Conditional fallacies: |  Slippery slope • What's the harm (logical fallacy) • Special pleading • Conditional fallacy • On the spot fallacy • Appeal to the minority • Argumentum ad populum • Galileo gambit • Professor of nothing •
| Genetic fallacies: |  Genetic fallacy •
|  | Appeals to authority: |  Ipse dixit • Appeal to confidence • Argumentum ad populum • Argument from authority • Linking to authority • Silent Majority • Invincible authority • Appeal to celebrity • Ultracrepidarianism • Appeal to the minority • Galileo gambit • Appeal to identity • Weasel word • Professor of nothing • Euthyphro dilemma • Divine command theory •
|  | Ad hominem: |  Ad iram • Argumentum ad cellarium • Bulverism • Poisoning the well • Blaming the victim • Tu quoque • Whataboutism • Nutpicking • Jonanism • Demonization • Shill gambit • Appeal to bias • Fallacy of opposition • Association fallacy • Damning with faint praise • Pathos gambit • Appeal to identity • Argumentum ad hominem • Nazi analogies • Not an argument • Nothing to hide • Scapegoat • 地下室论证 •
| Imprecision fallacies: |  Apex fallacy • Overprecision • Cherry picking • Overgeneralization • Texas sharpshooter fallacy • False analogy • Appeal to fiction • Spotlight fallacy • Pragmatic fallacy • Selection bias • Anecdotal evidence • Category mistake • Nutpicking • Imprecision fallacy • Confounding factor • Fallacy of accident • Neyman's bias •
Valid logical methods: |  Rapoport's Rules • Negative evidence • Reductio ad absurdum •
Fallacy collections: |  SeekFind • Nizkor Project • Fallacy Files • Your Logical Fallacy Is • Logically Fallacious •