FALSE EQUIVALENCE

                                

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

Anti-vaccine activists proclaim that they have just as much solid scientific evidence as pro-vaccine scientists, but anti-vaccinators’ evidence is largely anecdotal.  One study cited by anti-vaccination activists was even retracted for providing false information.  (The lead scientist on the study had been funded by attorneys who were pursuing lawsuits against the vaccine-makers.)  The retraction stated that there was no link found between MMR vaccines and autism.

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 fallacy of exclusive premises is a syllogistic fallacy committed in a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.

 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)