I to V :CONCEPTUAL
I.False
equivalence is a logical fallacy in
which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false
reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. It is a type of informal fallacy
where there is an ostensible similarity between
two things, but, on closer examination, are in fact not equivalent. The two
things may share something in common with one another, but they have
significant, often subtle, differences that are overlooked to strengthen the
argument.
A colloquial expression of false equivalency is
"comparing apples and oranges". The fact that Apples and Oranges are both
fruit and that they're round (i.e., they are equivalent in these
characteristics) doesn't necessarily mean that they are then going to taste the
same. From
everyday experience, we know that Apples and Oranges do not taste the same.
LOGICAL FORM
- [insert thing, event, etc. here] has characteristics
a, b, and c.
- Another [insert thing, event, etc. here] has
characteristics b and e.
- Therefore, since both share a characteristic b, they
are equivalent.
Note, in everyday use, the similarity between characteristic(s) need not
be exact for the fallacy to be committed. For example, comparing a beard to
a mustache in order to draw an equivalence between Hitler and Jesus. That
said, you must pay close attention to the comparison(s) being used within the
argument. If the argument draws on comparisons to support a reasonable
conclusion, then it is not a false equivalency.
EXAMPLES
1)Both Hitler and Stalin were atheists as well as being horrible people.Ergo,
atheists are horrible people.
Explanation: While true that both Stalin and Hitler
were atheists and horrible people, this doesn't mean that all atheists are
horrible people. There are a confluence of characteristics beyond theism
or atheism that directs an individual on how they choose to live their life.
3)Creationism and Evolution both explain how humans have come to be.Thus,
both should be taught to our children in school.
Explanation:
While it is true that both offer explanations for the genesis of
humanity, only Evolution is rooted in science, while the other is purely dogma. Scientists have decades
of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution and it is so well supported at
this point that it is also considered a fact [1]. Conversely, Creationism does
not have a shred of evidence to support its assertions and only persists due to
religion and peoples' willingness to believe the impossible in the name of
faith.
II. The
false equivalence fallacy is one where the speaker or writer compares one
thing to another to try to draw a logical conclusion, when in fact no such
similarity exists meaning that no such conclusion can be drawn. To look at
it in even more simple terms, you might say that ‘that is not equal to this’ in
essence disproving a claim containing a false equivalence fallacy. This type of
fallacy shows a cognitive bias in which ideas, situations, objects or events
are compared to one another by the writer or speaker who claims that they are
the same as each other when in reality there are many differences between the
two. The differences within a false equivalence fallacy can be made up of
anything such as quantity, appearance, and many others. It is very easy for
this type of fallacy to make its way into the conversation and it quite often
makes an appearance in the media.
Two
illustrations of false equivalence in a conversation:
1.Mr.
Brown has committed fraud on many occasions and has served time in prison, Mr.
Black once got a speeding ticket, they are both criminals. — In this
example a comparison is made between two people, clearly, they have both
committed illegal acts but they are so far separated that they simply cannot be
logically compared.
2.Dynamite and a knife are both
weapons are therefore the same thing. A simple example
of a false equivalence is saying that a knife and dynamite are both tools that
can be used as weapons, so they’re pretty much the same thing, and therefore if
we allow people to buy knives at the store, then we should also allow them to
also buy dynamite.
The issue with
this argument is that while both these items indeed share the characteristics
that are mentioned (being a tool and having the potential to be used as a
weapon), there is a significant difference between them in other domains, such
as their potential for causing damage, which makes this equivalence fallacious
III. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity
is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the
similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d,
and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are
equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity
is required to cause this fallacy to be used.
False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism and in politics, where flaws of one politician may be compared
to flaws of a wholly different nature of another.
IV.Even more
simply, False
equivalence is
a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly
asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some
characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences
between them. For example, a false equivalence is saying that cats and dogs are
the same animal, since they’re both mammals and have a tail.
False equivalences, which generally
exaggerate similarities and ignore important differences, can be used to equate a wide range
of things, including individuals, groups, actions, or arguments, either implicitly
or explicitly. Accordingly, false equivalences are frequently used in
debates on various topics, especially when it comes to suggesting that there is
a moral equivalence between two or more things that
are being equated.
V.Stephanie Sarkis in a post on
May 19,2019[This Is Not Equal To That: How False
Equivalence Clouds Our Judgment]says that ‘’False equivalence is a
type of cognitive bias or flawed reasoning style. False
equivalency means that you think (or are told) two things should have equal
weight in your decision-making. If one opinion has solid data supporting
it, but the other opinion is conjecture, they are not equivalent in quality.
In the 2016 presidential election un USA, people were told to “pick the lesser of the two evils,” even though in regards to fitness for office Clinton’s
history of being a senator and secretary of state made her much more
qualified. Many of the public were led to
believe that since both candidates had issues, those issues were equal in scope. However, using a private email server is small
potatoes compared to someone who has never held a public office and has a lengthy history of legal issues’’A study from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on
Media, Politics, and Public Policy found that the amount of negative coverage was
the same for Clinton and Trump, even though Trump’s issues were far
greater than Clinton’s. The lead author of the study,
Thomas Patterson, said, “Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of
magnitude as those surrounding Trump?” He continued, “It’s a question that
political reporters made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign.”
VI.What makes an equivalence false
IS that there is an issue with the reasoning
that’s used to explain why the things under consideration are equivalent to one
another. The most common issues that make an equivalence false are the
following:
·
The equivalence exaggerates the
degree of similarity between the things being equated. For example,
this could involve stating that two people share a certain personality trait,
while ignoring the fact that they only share certain aspects of this trait but
not others.
·
The equivalence exaggerates the
importance of the similarity between the things being equated. For example,
this could involve focusing on a personality trait that two people share, while
ignoring the fact that many other people also share this trait.
·
The equivalence ignores
important differences between the things being equated. For example,
this could involve mentioning a way in which two people are similar to one
another, while ignoring the many ways in which they are different.
·
The equivalence ignores
differences in orders of magnitude between the things being equated. For example,
this could involve equating different acts that two people performed, and
focusing on the fact that these acts are conceptually similar, despite the fact
that they’re widely different in terms of their impact.
·
VII.SUBJECTIVITY
Note that there is generally some
subjectivity involved in determining whether an equivalent is false or not. For
example, in a situation where there is a difference in the order of magnitude,
in terms of impact, of two acts that are being equated, the person presenting
the equivalence might believe that this difference is small enough that the
equivalence is reasonable, while someone else might argue that the difference
renders the equivalence false.
In such situations, it’s up to each party in the discussion to
argue either in favor or against the equivalence. Specifically, the burden of proof initially rests with the person who proposes an
equivalence, meaning that they must
provide proper support for the equivalence. Then, their opponent has a burden
of proof if they claim that the equivalence is false, meaning that they must
provide proper support for their argument against the equivalence.
.
VIII.In addition, false equivalences are
often used together with other logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques.
A.False equivalences are often used in conjunction with ad hominem attacks, such as the appeal
to hypocrisy (tu
quoque) variant, where the person using the fallacy is attempting
to discredit someone by claiming that their argument is inconsistent with their
previous acts. For instance, consider the following statement:
“You’re criticizing the company for allowing the oil spill to
happen, but what about that time I saw you litter at the park.”
Here, the person using the false equivalence
is attempting to equate two events, that are somewhat similar conceptually, but
involve completely different orders of magnitude, both in terms of the actions
that led up to the negative events in question, as well as in terms of the
outcomes of those events.
B.This approach, which is associated with the concept whataboutism, has the
basic following structure:
“You’re blaming [the entity in question] for [major event], but
what about [the other entity] who did [something relatively minor and/or only
weakly relevant]?”
C.Furthermore, false equivalences can also be used used in
conjunction with other logical fallacies. For example, they can be combined
with strawman
arguments, which are arguments that distort an
opposing view in order to make it easier to attack.
D. This can involve a misleading representation of the two sides
in the equivalence, through the use of cherry-picking, with the aim of making one
side appear more positive and the other more negative than they really are.
IX.A classic example of a
false equivalence has been described by author Isaac Asimov:
“…when people thought the earth was flat,
they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong.
But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as
thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put
together.”
— From ‘The Relativity of Wrong’ (1989), in The Skeptical
Inquirer.
In this case, Asimov is referring to the fact
that while the earth is not a perfect sphere, it’s much closer to being a
sphere than it is to being flat. Accordingly, it’s fallacious to suggest
that being wrong about the earth being a sphere is equivalent to being wrong
about the earth being flat, and an argument claiming that this is the case
would be an example of a false equivalence.
X.Some other illustrations(from Sarkis
work)
i.False dichotomies
A false dichotomy is
another type of false equivalence.
The common form of this is, “If you are against X, then you are against Y.” For
example, the fallacy “If you are for gun control, you are against individual
freedom.”
ii.In anti vaccine campaigns
iii.”You did something just as bad.”
In abusive relationships, a gaslighting partner will tell the
other, “So what about my cheating? You didn’t even cancel our dinner
reservations when I asked you to. You don’t care about our
relationship. That’s the real issue here.” This gaslighting tactic
will be used to convince the victim that they did something equally as
egregious, and therefore, according to the gaslighter, the victim should not be
upset at the gaslighter’s outrageous behavior. This allows the gaslighter
to get away with even more egregious behaviors, by always spinning it to
his or her partner as ”you did something just as bad.”
XI.Why are we susceptible to false equivalence?
Sarkis writes ‘’Because it simplifies our thinking. There
are less critical thinking skills needed when we accept two things as equal,
rather than unequal. In addition, when someone (especially a person
in authority) tells us two things are equivalent, we tend to believe it more
due to his or her inherent power. How do you fight back against false
equivalence? First, educate yourself on the different forms it takes so
you can recognize it. Next, call it out when you see it. Distance
yourself from the source of the false equivalence. The more we educate
others about this cognitive bias, and hold those who use false equivalence
accountable, the less impact it may make on an unsuspecting public.’’
XII.How to respond to a false equivalence
As we saw above, the issue with false
equivalences is that they incorrectly suggest that two (or more) things are
equivalent, in a situation where that’s not the case. Accordingly, the main
approach that you should use in order to counter this fallacious reasoning is
to demonstrate the issue with the equivalence that’s being presented. You
can do this in various ways, including the following:
·
Show that the similarities
between the things being equated are exaggerated, overemphasized, or
oversimplified.
·
Highlight the differences between the things
being equated, and explain why these differences are more significant than the
related similarities.
·
If the similarity between the things being equated is flawed due
to a significant difference in
terms of order magnitude, point this out and explain why it’s an issue.
·
Provide counterexamples
which, under the current classification, would also be considered equivalent to
the things being equated, but which contradict the point that the person using
the false equivalence is trying to make.
·
Ask your opponent to justify why they believe that their
equivalence is valid, and then demonstrate the issues with the reasoning that
they provide.
One course of action that is effective in most cases is to simply point out the logical flaw in the fallacious argument, and explain why it invalidates that
argument.
Finally, when responding to a false
equivalence, there are several important caveats that you must
keep in mind:
·
Not every comparison is an
equivalence; it’s possible to compare things without suggesting that they
are equal to one another.
·
Not every equivalence is a
false equivalence; in many cases, an equivalence may be entirely reasonable.
·
Not every false equivalence is
intentional; in many cases, people might use a false equivalence without
realizing that there is an issue with it.
·
Equivalence is subjective; it’s not always
possible to clearly determine whether a certain equivalence is false or not.
XIII..How to avoid using false equivalences
To avoid using false equivalences, you should
make sure that whenever you equate two or more things with one another, you
have proper justification as to why the things in question are equivalent,
based on relevant criteria.
If necessary, you should explicitly explain
why you believe that the equivalence in question is reasonable. This will help
you ensure that your equivalence is indeed reasonable, and help you demonstrate
this to the people that you’re talking to.
Furthermore, keep in mind that you can use
the same techniques that you would use if you thought someone else was using a
false equivalence, in order to ensure that you’re not using one yourself. For
example, if you’re unsure about whether an equivalence that you’re thinking
about is reasonable or not, you could attempt to highlight the differences
between the things that you’re equating, and ask yourself whether the
equivalence still holds.
Finally, you can help address some potential
issues with your proposed equivalences by being upfront about them, and using
appropriate language when presenting the equivalences. For example, if you’re
equating two actions that are similar in nature but whose outcomes are
different in terms of orders of magnitude, you could address this directly, and
explain why the equivalence is still sound. Doing this can turn an equivalence
that would otherwise be fallacious into an argument that is generally viewed as
reasonable.
XIV.Related fallacy: false balance
“If one person says that it’s raining and
another person says that it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s
your job to look out the window and find out which is true.”
— Attributed to Journalism Studies lecturer Jonathan Foster
False balance is
a logical fallacy that occurs when someone suggests that, if there are two or
more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere
in the middle between them. This concept
often plays a role in the media, where it’s also referred to as bothsidesism, in situations where
journalists present both sides of a story as if
they are balanced and equal to one another, even when evidence shows
that this is not the case.
For example, false balance might play a role in a group interview, if equal
weight is given to the opinions of two opposing interviewees, one of whom is an
established expert in their field who relies on scientific evidence, while the
other is a false authority with no valid credentials, who relies solely on personal
anecdotes.
False balance can occur as a result of a false
equivalence, in cases where two sides
are presented as being equal, despite the fact that they’re not. The two terms
are sometimes used interchangeably, though they have distinctly different
meanings, as is evident in the different definitions of each term.
XV.TWO MORE FALLACIES TO THINK ABOUT:
The formal fallacy of
the modal fallacy is a special type of fallacy that
occurs in modal logic. It
is the fallacy of placing a proposition in the wrong modal scope,most
commonly confusing the scope of what is necessarily true. A
statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for
the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the
statement to be false. Some philosophers further argue that a necessarily true
statement must be true in all possible worlds.
In modal logic, a
proposition {\displaystyle P}can be necessarily true or false OR
its truth or falseness can be contingent. The
modal fallacy occurs when there is a confusion of the distinction between the
two.
ACK;WIKI.AUTHORS MENTIONED (SUPRA)
