4 ms·
There ought to be a fallacy named for the mistake of thinking that something which existed in an analogous way in the past is equivalent to a quantitatively and
by karaterobot 2y ago
There ought to be a fallacy named for the mistake of thinking that something which existed in an analogous way in the past is equivalent to a quantitatively and qualitatively different phenomenon today.
"People used to read newspapers every day, now they feel a sense of panic if they can't find their smartphones; nothing new about that."
"Paleolithic tribes traded beads and flint knapping techniques, now there's an unimaginably complicated logistics chain that knits the world together like a nervous system; nothing new about that."
It would be a specific instance of a false analogy. Would it be too cute to call this a rhyming fallacy? History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes, etc.
- bunderbunder 2y agoDo we need a new fallacy for this? I think this is just a particular case of the fallacy of the beard.
- karaterobot 2y agoI don't think it's the same as the fallacy of the beard when there's no continuum between the two examples, which will always be the case if the analogy between them is false. If it is the case that globalization is really just an extension of trading between hunter-gatherer tribes, then I agree with you. To me, they're two different things. If I take my glasses off and squint, they sort of look alike in a poetic way, but they're not actually the same, differing only in scale.
- cudgy 2y agoTo me it seems like the author is stating a true observation, but they are ignoring the pace at which the phenomena is evolving given the technical advances mentioned in the article, especially of transportation and communication. The pace of cultural change matters greatly as large, quick shifts in culture are usually accompanied by massive resistance/wars, increased racism, genocides, autocracy, and a general desire to slow things down no matter what it takes.
- alganet 2y agoThe claim is "there are no pure cultures". Is this claim falsifiable? Yes. One could disprove it by demonstrating a culture that never had any mixing. This claim is very different from the claim "nothing new about that", which is a classic straw man. The author offers some evidence for all this mixing. One can argue about the quantitatively nature of it, but not the qualitative. Human cultures qualify for what can be described as intermixed. Again, all we need to do to disprove this claim is present one pure culture. So, yeah, there's a lot that changed from newspapers to phones, but there is also an undeniable trend that connects them. That's why it's not a falacy per se, but similar claims could be falacious. Trying to come up with a falsifiable scenario for the _specific claim_ is what settles the matter.
- Jensson 2y ago> all we need to do to disprove this claim is present one pure culture. Define "pure culture". This seems to be mostly different interpretations about what that means. If someone says that no water is pure so this polluted water is fine, that is a fallacy.
- alganet 2y agoI can't define what "pure culture" is. I've never seen one. The people claiming that pure cultures exist that must try to define it. The onus is on them, not me.