Imagine you’re baking an apple pie, and someone suggests using oranges instead because, after all, a fruit is a fruit, right? This might sound silly, but it highlights a common mistake in reasoning known as the “apples and oranges fallacy.” This fallacy occurs when people assume that because two things share a characteristic, they must be similar in other ways too. Let’s explore this concept further with some historical and scientific examples.
In 1988, scientist James Hansen testified before the United States Congress, warning that human activities were causing global warming and that this trend posed a significant threat to humanity. Fast forward to 1997, when the U.S. Senate held a hearing on global warming. Some experts argued that since Earth experienced warmer periods in the past, the current warming trend must also be natural. This reasoning is a classic example of the apples and oranges fallacy.
Just because past warm periods occurred naturally doesn’t mean today’s warming is natural too. It’s like saying that because two people have a fever, they must have the same illness. One might have chickenpox, while the other has the flu. Similarly, different warm periods in Earth’s history had different causes and effects.
Let’s examine some past warm periods to understand why they don’t necessarily explain today’s climate change. During the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse, about 92 million years ago, volcanic activity increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, creating a greenhouse effect that warmed the planet. Another warm period, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, occurred 55 million years ago and was likely caused by the release of methane from ocean sediments.
These periods were driven by natural events, but each had unique causes and effects. They are as different from each other as they are from today’s climate change, which is primarily driven by human activities like burning fossil fuels.
Understanding climate change requires careful study and evidence collection. Making false analogies, like comparing today’s warming to past natural events without considering the differences, only hinders scientific progress. In 2013, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded, based on decades of research, that there is a more than 95% chance that the global warming trend since the mid-20th century is due to human activities.
While it might be tempting to draw simple comparisons, especially when dealing with complex issues like climate change, it’s crucial to recognize and avoid false analogies. By doing so, we can better understand the challenges we face and work towards effective solutions.
Research a historical warm period, such as the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Create a presentation that explains the causes and effects of this period and compare it to today’s climate change. Highlight why it is a false analogy to equate past natural warming with current human-induced warming.
Participate in a class debate where you argue either for or against the statement: “Today’s climate change is just a natural cycle.” Use evidence from scientific studies to support your position and identify any false analogies used in the opposing arguments.
Design a comic strip that humorously illustrates the apples and oranges fallacy. Use a scenario like the apple pie and oranges example to show how false analogies can lead to incorrect conclusions. Share your comic with the class and discuss its message.
In groups, come up with your own examples of false analogies in everyday life. Present these to the class and explain why they are misleading. Discuss how recognizing these fallacies can improve critical thinking and decision-making.
Write an essay reflecting on the importance of avoiding false analogies in scientific discussions. Use examples from the climate change debate and other areas to illustrate your points. Consider how this understanding can be applied to other subjects and real-world issues.
Here’s a sanitized version of the provided YouTube transcript:
—
**Baking apple pie?**
Discount Orange Warehouse has you covered! A fruit is 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, that’s quite insightful 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 annoying? 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 annoying 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 chickenpox, 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 that 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 that crocodiles swam in the waters of the Arctic Circle. This warming may have been caused by the drying of inland seas and the 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.
—
This version removes any informal or potentially inappropriate language while maintaining the core message and context of the original transcript.
Fallacy – A mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments or reasoning. – It is a fallacy to assume that all environmental changes are solely due to natural cycles without considering human impact.
Climate – The long-term pattern of weather conditions in a particular area. – The climate of the region has shifted significantly over the past century due to global warming.
Change – The process through which something becomes different. – Scientists are studying the change in ocean temperatures to understand its impact on marine life.
Reasoning – The action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. – Critical reasoning is essential when evaluating the potential solutions to environmental issues.
Evidence – Information or data that supports a conclusion or hypothesis. – The evidence from ice core samples shows a correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.
Study – A detailed examination and analysis of a subject or situation. – The recent study on deforestation highlights the urgent need for sustainable land management practices.
Warming – An increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. – Global warming is causing glaciers to melt at an unprecedented rate, raising sea levels worldwide.
Activities – Actions or tasks that are done for a particular purpose. – Human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are major contributors to climate change.
Analogies – Comparisons between two things that are similar in some way, often used to explain a concept. – Analogies between the greenhouse effect and a blanket can help students understand how gases trap heat in the atmosphere.
Effects – Changes that are a result or consequence of an action or other cause. – The effects of pollution on biodiversity are evident in the declining populations of many species.
