Apples and oranges
A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared, typically because of inherent or fundamental differences between the objects.
The idiom, comparing apples and oranges, refers to the differences between items which are popularly thought to be incomparable or incommensurable, such as apples and oranges. The idiom may also indicate that a false analogy has been made between two items, such as where an apple is faulted for not being a good orange.
Variants
The idiom is not only used in English.In European French the idiom is comparer des pommes et des poires or comparer des choux et des carottes. The former is the same as the German Äpfel mit Birnen vergleichen.
In Latin American Spanish, it is comparar papas y boniatos or, for all varieties of Spanish, comparar peras con manzanas or sumar peras con manzanas. In Peninsular Spanish, juntar churras con merinas and confundir el tocino con la velocidad. Italian and Romanian also compare pears and apples. In Portuguese, the expression is comparar laranjas com bananas.
In Serbian, it is Поредити бабе и жабе . In Romanian, it is baba și mitraliera and vaca și izmenele.
Some languages compare dissimilar properties of dissimilar items. In Danish, Hvad er højest, Rundetårn eller et tordenskrald?, referring to the size of the former and the sound of the latter. In Russian, сравнивать тёплое с мягким is used. In Argentina, a common question is ¿En qué se parecen el amor y el ojo del hacha?. In Colombia, confundir la mierda con la pomada is used. In Polish, a similar idiomatic question is co ma piernik do wiatraka?. In Chinese, a similar phrase is used: 风马牛不相及 .
A humorous variant is to replace "oranges" with something utterly dissimilar to apples; most famously, Jack Horner said that comparing science and religion is like comparing "apples and sewing machines." The idea is that although dissimilar, apples and oranges are at least fruits and at least share rudimentary similarities, whereas comparing them to something entirely different, such as pine cones or light bulbs, highlights how patently absurd making a comparison between the two is. This may be extended even further, comparing the fruit to non-physical concepts, such as "apples and jury nullification".
A particular related idiom found in accounting and economics is that of the "apples to apples comparison"; such comparisons are meant to filter out such complicating factors as accounting standards, size and scale and time periods. For example, same-store sales is widely used as measurement because it allows a direct comparison of how the business is doing ignoring growth, which can be a significant complicating factor.
Published comparisons
At least two tongue-in-cheek scientific studies have been conducted on the subject, each of which concluded that apples can be compared with oranges reasonably easily and on a low budget, and the two fruits are quite similar.The first study, conducted by Scott Sandford of the NASA Ames Research Center, used infrared spectroscopy to analyze both apples and oranges. The study, which was published in the satirical science magazine Annals of Improbable Research, concluded: "... the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future."
A second study, written by Stamford Hospital's surgeon-in-chief James Barone and published in the British Medical Journal, noted that the phrase apples and oranges was appearing with increasing frequency in the medical literature, with some notable articles comparing "Desflurane and propofol" and "Salmeterol and ipratropium" with "apples and oranges". The study also found that both apples and oranges were sweet, similar in size, weight, and shape, that both are grown in orchards, and both may be eaten, juiced, and so on. The only significant differences found were in terms of seeds, the involvement of Johnny Appleseed, and color.
The Annals of Improbable Research subsequently noted that the "earlier investigation was done with more depth, more rigour, and, most importantly, more expensive equipment" than the British Medical Journal study.
On April Fools' Day 2014, The Economist compared worldwide production of apples and oranges from 1983 to 2013, and noted them to be "unrelated variables".