Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so?
I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared.
So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to attack your opponents by claiming what they are saying cannot be said.
Moreover if you chuck an apple and an orange in a mass spectrometer you will find that they are more or less exactly the same. I believe someone won an igNobel prize for that observation.
`kg of fuel per metre` is division, not comparison. You can divide different units by each other. It isn't guaranteed to always make sense but it's very useful.
It seems to me that "can't compare apples and oranges" is trying to say that you're using apple criteria to try to judge oranges. It's not that you can't compare apples and oranges, but you have to use fruit criteria to do so, not apple criteria or orange criteria.
So, to stop using similes: You can compare CPUs. You can compare memory chips. You can also compare memory chips and CPUs on, say, power consumption. But you can't compare memory chips to CPUs in terms of MIPS. If you try, then it's appropriate to accuse you of comparing apples to oranges.
Probably because the word “contrast” has been subsumed by the word “compare”.
From thefreedictionary.com for contrast:
> contrast
to examine differences; a striking exhibition of unlikeness: The contrast of styles intensified the impact of the paintings.
> Not to be confused with:
compare – to liken; relate; examine similarities: compare the shades of blue
You can’t compare apples to oranges unless you talk about their similarities (round objects, fruits, etc). Similarities don’t offer any new value to the conversation of apples and oranges. You can “contrast” apples and oranges (red, orange, better, worse). Which adds new analysis to the topic.
One thinks of the late Tom Lehrer:
(The Wienerschnitzel Waltz)Since this is about language and similes, what about "You can't compare apples and oranges"? People say that frequently, but why in particular is that so?
I think you can compare any one thing to any other one thing. You can discuss what are their common features and what features they have that are not shared.
So it seems to me "Can't compare apples and oranges" is often used just as a polemic device, trying to attack your opponents by claiming what they are saying cannot be said.
I think it's more you shouldn't judge apples based on the criteria of how good it is at being an orange, and vice-versa.
Kind of like how you don't judge a fish on how well it climbs trees.
Who doesn't love them tree climbing fishies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
The Czechs say that you can't compare the sky (or the heavens, depending on how you want to translate it) and bagpipes.
Moreover if you chuck an apple and an orange in a mass spectrometer you will find that they are more or less exactly the same. I believe someone won an igNobel prize for that observation.
It's always been like "you cannot compare values of different units" to me. Maybe we should start saying "you cannot compare kilograms to metres".
A kilogram is more than enough gasoline to move my car a meter.
`kg of fuel per metre` is division, not comparison. You can divide different units by each other. It isn't guaranteed to always make sense but it's very useful.
The result of division of two numbers is a comparison of those numbers.
It seems to me that "can't compare apples and oranges" is trying to say that you're using apple criteria to try to judge oranges. It's not that you can't compare apples and oranges, but you have to use fruit criteria to do so, not apple criteria or orange criteria.
So, to stop using similes: You can compare CPUs. You can compare memory chips. You can also compare memory chips and CPUs on, say, power consumption. But you can't compare memory chips to CPUs in terms of MIPS. If you try, then it's appropriate to accuse you of comparing apples to oranges.
Good point. If things exist in different "ontological categories" trying to evaluate which of them is "better" makes little sense.
But apples and oranges are both good food, so we can compare how much calories you get forjm them, or vitamins etc.
Probably because the word “contrast” has been subsumed by the word “compare”.
From thefreedictionary.com for contrast:
> contrast to examine differences; a striking exhibition of unlikeness: The contrast of styles intensified the impact of the paintings.
> Not to be confused with: compare – to liken; relate; examine similarities: compare the shades of blue
You can’t compare apples to oranges unless you talk about their similarities (round objects, fruits, etc). Similarities don’t offer any new value to the conversation of apples and oranges. You can “contrast” apples and oranges (red, orange, better, worse). Which adds new analysis to the topic.