I'm not sure what kind of fallacy this is, but I have noticed it. It seems similar to fallacies of relevance. Here is a description:
Fallacy of arbitrary distinction
When two things are of the same type or property in the given example, but made to sound as if they are different.
Proponents of substance dualism often make this fallacy. For example, certain types of mental thought processes might be described by them as being of some supernatural type, like feelings of spirituality, when really it is a process in the brain, like other types cognition. The implied distinction is therefore arbitrary and fallacious. Arguably, the phrase "physically and mentally" makes this fallacy.
Another example:
Does it fit into the group of fallacies of relevance? Could it fit into an already commonly described fallacy? Do you agree with my definition/description?
Fallacy of arbitrary distinction
When two things are of the same type or property in the given example, but made to sound as if they are different.
Proponents of substance dualism often make this fallacy. For example, certain types of mental thought processes might be described by them as being of some supernatural type, like feelings of spirituality, when really it is a process in the brain, like other types cognition. The implied distinction is therefore arbitrary and fallacious. Arguably, the phrase "physically and mentally" makes this fallacy.
Another example:
SchrodingersFinch said:It also includes the "micro vs. macroevolution" argument. Creationists accept microevolution, but claim that macroevolution is impossible, implying that there's a qualitative difference between them, when it's really just a difference in quantity.
Does it fit into the group of fallacies of relevance? Could it fit into an already commonly described fallacy? Do you agree with my definition/description?