What they actually mean is rather “these two things are very dissimilar”, or “these two things are unequal”.
I guess in most situations “cannot be compared” could be replaced by “cannot be equated”, with less lingual inaccuracy and still the same message conveyed.
To come to the conclusion that two things are very dissimilar, very unequal, one necessarily has to compare them. So it’s rather odd to come up with “cannot be compared” after just literally comparing them.
For example, bikes and cars. We compare them by looking at each’s details, and finding any dissimilarities. They have a different amount of wheels. Different propulsion methods. Different price, and so on.
When this list becomes very long, or some details have a major meaning which should not be equated, people say they cannot be compared.
An example with a major meaning difference: Some people say factory farming of animals and the Holocaust are very similar, or something alike. Others disagree, presumably because they feel wether it’s humans or animals being treated, the motives or whatnot make a difference big enough that the two should not be compared equated.
Can you follow my thoughts? Are ‘dissimilar’ or ‘unequal’ better terms? I’d be especially interested in arguments in favor of ‘compared’.
Ironically, what you’re doing is called “equivocating.” It’s the assumption that two different concepts mean the same thing, often because they are named with the same word.
In this case, you are equivocating the concept of judging the relative merits of two things with the concept of noting differences between two disparate things. Both concepts are called “comparing” but they are different concepts.
To use your example, you can compare bikes and cars by speed, by price, by cargo capacity, by viability as a means of transport, by weight, etc. You are looking at the qualities, quantifiable or otherwise, to evaluate the two things in relation to each other.
You can also compare the mechanics of the two machines. A car has an engine and a transmission, a gas tank, power steering and brakes, electronics, a radio, rearview camera, tire pressure sensors, and cup holders. A bike has gears, a chain, pedals, a frame, brakes, a bottom bracket, a fork, shifters, reflectors, and a little cage for a water bottle. These might be similar in components and functionality, but you wouldn’t say one is better or worse, because they are each built for a specific function. If you compare a cup holder to a water bottle cage, you could define how they are similar and how they are dissimilar, but it would not be the same sort of comparison as comparing the top speed of a car to the top speed of a bike.
Both uses of the term “compare” are correct. There’s no inaccuracies in your language, because the word “compare” means something different in each context. English is full of words like this, where the meaning can be slightly changed or even entirely opposite depending on when and how it is said. That doesn’t mean you are using the words wrong. Your confusion of the two concepts is the mistake, not the use of one word to describe two different things.
Thanks for taking the time to write this detailed reply. I guess you’re right about the equivocation and I can see the irony :D
Though I have not fully understood yet. Following your example, the two different concepts are …
- in case A, we compare the value of a property (different top speed)
- in case B, we compare the purpose or context-dependend usefulness of an attribute (different types of liquid container holders)
What blocks me from fully agreeing is that still, both are comparisons. And they don’t feel so different to me that I would call them different concepts. When I look up examples for equivocations, those do feel very different to me.
I still guess you’re right. If you (or someone else) could help me see the fallacy, I’d appreciate.
Where did you get your definition of “equivocating”?
Judging the relative merits of two things, and noting the differences between disparate things, is fundamentally the same thing.
You can define a car as a steering wheel and an engine and a gear box etc.
Or you can define a car as a generic object and one of the first fundamental properties of all generic objects is the list of all other features and properties that that object has.
So noting the differences between two things, is really just judging the relative merits of their collection of properties.
I would argue that @Spzi@lemm.ee is correct, and people often use “can’t be compared” incorrectly, or they intentionally use it that way to be over the top and dramatic, like saying I love you to infinity.
I see it as more like : these thinga are too dissimilar to be compared meaningfully. Like if some article says which is the best tool? And they give you a rake, a network router, and a nailgun. Then you meed context. You can make a matrix of differences and similarities but depends what you are trying to compare. Comparing could be: All are durable, All save time on tasks, All can break with misuse.
But can also be nailgun and router is bad for raking leaves.Yeah this, “cannot be compared” is meant to imply “Their comparison yields no meaningful conclusion”
these thinga are too dissimilar to be compared meaningfully. Like if some article says which is the best tool? And they give you a rake, a network router, and a nailgun. Then you meed context.
I think to OPs point though, is that all of those two things can be compared. The context of the article is what makes them incomparable. But if you asked me to compare a router to a nailgun I could talk durability, power draw, intended function, materials, relative ability to make it through TSA, etc etc.
Literally no two things are fundamentally incomparable. Things are only incomparable in specific contexts.
You repeat exactly what you quoted me on…you need context to compare
No, things always have inherent context by nature of being things. Context can be used to make things incomparable, but they’re always inherently comparable without explicit context needing to be provided. This is literally the entire basis of the game 20 Questions.
Attributes and values. The more attributes two things have in common, the easier to compare them by value. But when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.
But, two things can have all the exact same attributes but totally different values of each. Thus they’re dissimilar or unequal when compared, but can be compared. The cybertruck and a Ford F-150 can be compared but are dissimilar. For all the attributes they share are unequal. A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.
This said, it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.
I like that, especially this insight:
when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.
A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.
Good on you to say “harder to compare” :D
it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.
Another thing worthwhile to point out; subjectivity. I guess that part bothered me too. “cannot be compared” attempts to establish some kind of objective truth, whereas it only can be a subjective opinion.
The reference to poetry was nice, too.
What makes you think a statement like “cannot be compared” is an assertion of objective truth?
They mean they can’t be compared in any significant way or they can’t be compared except in the broadest terms. Yes I could compare you to a summers day but really only if im waxing poetic.
But to be fair, thou art more lovely and more temperate.
What they actually mean is rather “these two things are very dissimilar”, or “these two things are unequal”.
I think what they mean is “This is an invalid comparison”. For instance, the idea that two concepts are “apples and oranges” invokes the idea that apples and orange can’t be compared. But of course they could be compared as fruits (which would you prefer to get in line at the cafeteria? Aren’t you inherently inviting a comparison? I’m with you on that).
However, if one were asking whether golden delicious apples are better than honeycrisp apples and someone butts in that navel oranges are the best, they’d get the same “navel oranges and golden delicious/honeycrisp apples can’t be compared” response because they’ve brought up an invalid comparison in the context of the comparison. Apples and oranges.
I take “cannot be compared” to be a sort of shorthand claim - they aren’t actually asserting that the two things literally cannot be compared at all, but that they cannot be compared meaningfully or relevantly.
Agreed, yeah. Guess I was taking the word too literally.
You weren’t, relevantly implies that there is additional context that determines their relevance. Often when people say “two things aren’t comparable”, they’re trying to use that shorthand to avoid debating the context that would make them comparable or incomparable.
False dichotomy, because there’s never two options, there’s all the options, pizza tonight or tacos? There’s millions of alternatives.
My point works just as well with an arbitrary amount of options. Someone could say “These quintillion things cannot be compared”.
The number of options is irrelevant to what I tried to address. Though my examples were only pairs, so sorry for causing confusion.
Alternatively, the statement can be made in either of two additional contexts:
- I didn’t bother to compare these because of their glaring dissimilarities/ my own laziness.
- It is obvious to the casual observer that a comparison between these things would not produce a meaningful result, and therefore I’m pointing out that comparisons would be moot.
Apples to oranges. What is similar? They are fruit. That’s about it.
Apples and Oranges have lots of similarities. About equal size and nutritions for example. Similar ph values, both grow on Trees
Just to name a few.
Think about literally every object in the universe, every person, every shoe, every table, every rock, grain of sand, grain of dust, elephant, tree, blade of grass, grape, etc…
Apples and Oranges are some of the most similar of all of them.
Hehe, right! (technically). Context matters! When talking about fruit, people usually don’t include stellar objects when weighing their options. Still true when taking in consideration that “apples to oranges” is usually metaphorical and not really about fruit.
