PARALYSIS BY ANALYSIS

Analysis paralysis (or paralysis by analysis) describes an individual or group process when over analyzing or overthinking a situation can cause forward motion or decision-making to become "paralyzed", meaning that no solution or course of action is decided upon. A situation may be deemed as too complicated and a decision is never made, due to the fear that a potentially larger problem may arise. A person may desire a perfect solution, but may fear making a decision that could result in error, while on the way to a better solution. Equally, a person may hold that a superior solution is a short step away, and stall in its endless pursuit, with no concept of diminishing returns.

[On the opposite end of the time spectrum is the phrase extinct by instinct, which is making a fatal decision based on hasty judgment or a gut reaction.]

Analysis paralysis is when the fear of either making an error, or foregoing a superior solution, outweighs the realistic expectation or potential value of success in a decision made in a timely manner. This imbalance results in suppressed decision-making in an unconscious effort to preserve existing options. An overload of options can overwhelm the situation and cause this "paralysis", rendering one unable to come to a conclusion. It can become a larger problem in critical situations where a decision needs to be reached, but a person is not able to provide a response fast enough, potentially causing a bigger issue than they would have, had they made a decision.

The basic idea has been expressed through narrative a number of times. In one "Aesop's fable" that is recorded even before Aesop's time, The Fox and the Cat, the fox boasts of "hundreds of ways of escaping" while the cat has "only one". When they hear the hounds approaching, the cat scampers up a tree while "the fox in his confusion was caught up by the hounds". The fable ends with the moral, "Better one safe way than a hundred on which you cannot reckon". Related concepts are expressed by the Centipede's dilemma, how unconscious activity is disrupted by conscious thought of it, and by the tale of Buridan's ass, a paradox of rational decision with equal options.

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the main character, Prince Hamlet, is often said to have a mortal flaw of thinking too much, such that his youth and vital energy are "sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought" Neema Parvini explores some of Hamlet's key decisions in the chapter "'And Reason Panders Will': Another Look at Hamlet's Analysis Paralysis"

Voltaire popularized an old Italian proverb in French in the 1770s of which an English variant is "Perfect is the enemy of good". The meaning of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" is that one might never complete a task if one has decided not to stop until it is perfect: completing the project well is made impossible by striving to complete it perfectly.

In a paper published in 1970, based on a speech in 1969 and other works, Silver and Hecker wrote:

The Duke group has used the term "analysis-paralysis" to point out that, if we wait until we have completely answered all the questions and solved all of the problems before training the personnel we need, we will never reach a solution. The insistent demands for further study and extensive evaluation suggested by some may only be a defense by those who do not wish to change or those who fear change.

Although analysis paralysis can actually occur at any time, regarding any issue in typical conversation, it is particularly likely to occur during elevated, intellectual discussions. During such intellectual discussion, analysis paralysis involves the overanalysis of a specific issue to the point where that issue can no longer be recognized, and the subject of the conversation is lost.

Preventing and overcoming

1.Set limits

Set initial constraints (deadline, time, people, money, resources,...) to what you are willing to commit for this plan.

2.Clarify objectives and priorities

3.Remember nothing is perfect

"Recognize that the moons will never align.

4.Take small iterative steps

5.Change number of options

6.Add or remove emotion

7.Talk about it

8.Make your best decision

Ack;Wikipaedia.The authors referred above.

SHOCK AND AWE(IN LITIGATION LAW)

Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a tactic based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy their will to fight. Though the concept has a variety of historical precedent, the doctrine was explained by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and was developed specifically for application by the US military by the National Defense University of the United States.

It is an attempt  to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary to fight or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe.

Ullman and Wade identify four vital characteristics of rapid dominance:

1.    near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary, and environment;

2.   rapidity and timeliness in application;

3.   operational brilliance in execution; and

4.   (near) total control and signature management of the entire operational environment.

The term "shock and awe" is most consistently used by Ullman and Wade as the effect that rapid dominance seeks to impose upon an adversary. It is the desired state of helplessness and lack of will. It can be induced, they write, by

direct force applied to command and control centers,

selective denial of information,

dissemination of disinformation,

overwhelming combat force, and

rapidity of action.

Ullman and Wade enumerate nine examples:

·        Overwhelming force: The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible."

·        Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The establishment of shock and awe through "instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively few numbers or systems."

·        Massive bombardment: Described as "precise destructive power largely against military targets and related sectors over time."

·        Blitzkrieg: The "intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale."

·        Sun Tzu: The "selective, instant beheading of military or societal targets to achieve shock and awe."

·        Haitian example: "Imposing shock and awe through a show of force and indeed through deception, misinformation, and disinformation."

·        The Roman legions: "Achieving shock and awe rests in the ability to deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary's perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility."

·        Decay and default: "The imposition of societal breakdown over a lengthy period, but without the application of massive destruction."

This is not merely a military strategy.It is and can be a part of litigation law specially when arguing before a Tribunal or higher forum with suitable modifications.Let us adapt the characteristics:

near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of facts of the appeal,case authorities;awareness of opposing counsel and his capabilities and environment(ie the judges,the context etc.);

rapidity and timeliness in presentation of facts and law;

operational brilliance in creating the case scenario; and

(near) total control and signature management of the entire hearing environment.

Defeat the opposing counsel in the mind;by your sheer mastery,break his will,make him anxious and reduce him to utter helplessness.Ruthless execution of rehearsed plan.When he is down,don’t relent.Pin him there,till judges say k.o.

ZOHNERISM

I came across an astonishing story on the lines of POST TRUTH.Researching it lead me to the following ...Culled from numerous write ups on the subject...All are acknowledged ..With a few from my own!

In 1997, 14 year old Nathan Zohner presented his science fair project to his classmates, seeking to ban a highly toxic chemical from it’s everyday use.
The chemical in question? Dihydrogen monoxide.
Throughout his presentation, Zohner provided his audience scientifically correct evidence as to why this chemical should be banned.
He explained that dihydrogen monoxide:
-----Causes severe burns in while it’s in gas form
-----Corrodes and rusts metal
-----Kills countless amounts of people annually
-----Is commonly found in tumors, acid rain etc.
-----Causes excessive urination and bloating if consumed
-----Zohner also noted that the chemical is able to kill you if you depend on it and then experience an extended withdrawal.
He then asked his classmates if they actually wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide.
And so 43 out of the 50 children present voted to ban this clearly toxic chemical.
However…this chemical isn’t typically considered toxic at all.
In fact, dihydrogen monoxide is simply an unconventional name for water.
Nathan Zohner’s experiment wasn’t a legitimate attempt to ban water, but instead an experiment to get a representation of how gullible people can really be.
Also, all of the points that Zohner used to convey his point were 100% factually correct; he just skewed all of the information in his favor by omitting certain facts.
The implications of Nathan's research are so disturbing writes journalist JK Glassman “ that I've decided to coin a term: "Zohnerism," defined as the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion”And this occurs a lot more often than you think, especially when opinion makers,propagandists,professors of whatsapp university, conspiracy theorists, etc., use proven facts to persuade people into believing false claims. In a land where technical ignorance reigns and susceptibility to Zohnerisms is high, the fourth pillar of democracy i.e. the media is seen many times as spreading misinformation, post-truth, biased views, and preconceived opinions on the incidents with the intent to create a false public opinion. That’s a shame. Every day, people use facts to deceive you because you let them.Life is hard. We all get fooled six ways from Sunday. People lie to us, we miscommunicate, and it’s impossible to always correctly read other people’s feelings. But facts? If we let facts deceive us, that’s on us.When it’s hard to be right, there is nothing wrong with being wrong. But when it only takes a few minutes or even seconds to verify, learn, and educate yourself, choosing to stay ignorant is really just that: A decision — and likely one for which you’ll get the bill sooner rather than later.Today, we have smartphones. We have a library larger than Alexandria’s in our pocket and finding any page from any book takes mere seconds. Yet, we still get “zohnered” on a daily basis. We allow ourselves to be.“Too much sugar is bad for you. Don’t eat any sugar.” Yes, too much sugar is bad, but the corollary isn’t to stop eating it altogether. Carbohydrates are the body’s main source of energy, and they’re all broken down into various forms of sugar. It’s a vital component of a functioning metabolism. Plus, each body has its own nuances, so cutting out sugar without more research could actually be bad for you. But if I’m selling a no-sugar diet, who cares, right?
You care. You should. And that’s why it’s your job to verify such claims. It’s easy to spin something correct in a way that sends you in whatever direction the manipulator wants to send you. The only solution is to work hard in order to not let yourself be manipulated:
• Say “I don’t know” when you don’t know. I know it’s hard, but it’s the most liberating phrase in the world. Whenever you’re out of your comfort zone, practice. “Actually, I don’t know, let me look it up.”
• Admit that you don’t know to yourself. You’ll miss some chances to say “I don’t know.” That’s okay, you can still educate yourself in private later. Your awareness of your ignorance is as important as fighting it.
• Learn about your biases. Hundreds of cognitive biases affect our thinking and decisions every waking second. Learning about them and occasionally brushing up on that knowledge will go a long way.
• When someone argues for one side of a conflict, research both. Whether it’s a story in the news, a political issue, or even the issue of where to get lunch, don’t let yourself get clobbered into one corner. Yes, McDonald’s is cheap. Yes, you like their fries. But what about Burger King? What do you like and not like about both of them?
• When someone talks in absolutes, add a question mark to every sentence. James Altucher often does this with his own thoughts, but it’s equally helpful in questioning the authority of others. Don’t think in absolutes. Think in questions.
The dihydrogen monoxide play has been used many times to point people at their own ignorance. A 1994 version created by Craig Jackson petitions people to “act now” before ending on a truthful yet tongue-in-cheek note: “What you don’t know can hurt you and others throughout the world.”
Richard Feynman received the Nobel prize in physics, but he started his journey as a curious boy, just like Nathan Zohner. Like Einstein, he believed inquisitiveness could solve any problem, and so he always spoke in simple terms — to get people interested in science.
He also said the following, which still rings true today: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

लम्हे

ज़िन्दगी से लम्हे चुरा बटुए मे रखता रहा!
फुरसत से खरचूंगा बस यही सोचता रहा।

उधड़ती रही जेब करता रहा तुरपाई
फिसलती रही खुशियाँ करता रहा भरपाई।

इक दिन फुरसत पायी सोचा .......खुद को आज रिझाऊं
बरसों से जो जोड़े वो लम्हे खर्च आऊं।

खोला बटुआ..लम्हे न थे जाने कहाँ रीत गए!
मैंने तो खर्चे नही जाने कैसे बीत गए !!

फुरसत मिली थी सोचा खुद से ही मिल आऊं।
आईने में देखा जो पहचान  ही न पाऊँ।

ध्यान से देखा बालों पे चांदी सा चढ़ा था,
था तो मुझ जैसा पर जाने कौन खड़ा था।

    -अज्ञात

TRUE LOVE

The term ‘love’evokes images and confusions.Talking about ISHQ WALA LOVE.Someone asked me recently  at a life concepts session ki aapki nazar mein what is TRUE LOVE?For starters I never knew love could be untrue as well! But cynicism and witticism apart ,it got me thinking.I could not answer the lady at that time,just said watch my blog.Attempting an answer.
Before I embark on TRUE part if we can have a common conceptual understanding of what (romantic)love is: to me,its a simple matter of physics, chemistry and geography.Khushwant Singh sir,if I recall correctly, famously said once(men would love this)’’love is temporary,lust is permanent’’!Taking it to be a hyperbole,I just extract the physical intimacy part from it and add to it the emotional connect part.Throw in a bit of jealousy(‘’one who is not jealous,is not in love’’)and possessiveness and I guess we basically understand this is what love(more or less) is all about.You may add value coalescence,commitment and loyalty,though ,to me these come bundled with emotional connect.
Geography ,some may find to be an intriguing addition.TO me love is also a matter of where you are physically, and who do you get to meet.Many a time,don’t we(if we are hurt in love specially)say on meeting and knowing someone later(after we are ‘’committed’’) ‘’how I wish I had met him/her before’’.In its virulent form such anticipation may give rise to inability to get committed.I understand we call it,FOBO:fear of better options.To me its a base thought if consumed raw.Since when did love became a matter of option?I would hate to be someone’s option.I’d be someone’s choice,thank you.But then,I digress.Coming back to our issue.Love is a matter then of physics,chemistry and geography.
But this love fails.It hurts.It goes.(Remember the old song:’’where does(all the) love go,when its gone?’’.Hear the Ginger Boatwright or Janie Fricke version.).Why?Whatever happened to ‘’and they lived happily ever after’’? Where is the’’prince on the white charger and damsel in distress story’’?Guess it got confined to the M &B books era.
I was told that love went because it wasn’t true...by the same question poser.But stumped she was about which love was true.So was I.Guess my Eureka moment came  thereafter.The TRUE part of ‘’true love’’ I think is this:
T= TRUST
R=RESPECT
U=UNDERSTANDING
E=EMPATHY`
This ,mi lady in question,is what true is...not only in love ...but in any relationship.Test the cases of failed love.At the bottom you will find one or more of these ingredients missing.[The copyright to this acronyming is entirely mine.Giving it for patent!]

Truth is that love ,by itself,is never enough.It wasn't meant to be.Love,by definition is an incomplete concept.That is why it goes.To be eternal,for it to create a "real,happily ever after story",it has to be TRUE.

So -where does love go,when its gone?

Logic vs Maths

Two Clever Nuns 

There were two nuns.

One of them was known as Sister Mathematical (SM), and the other one was known as Sister Logical (SL).

It is getting dark and they are still far away from the convent.

SM: Have you noticed that a man has been following us for the past 38 ½ minutes? I wonder what he wants.

SL: It's logical. He wants to violate us.

SM: Oh, no! At this rate he will reach us in 15 minutes at the most! What can we do?

SL: The only logical thing to do of course is to walk faster.

A little while later...

SM: It's not working.

SL: Of course it's not working. The man did the only logical thing. He started to walk faster, too.

SM: So, what shall we do? At this rate he will reach us in 1 minute.

SL:The only logical thing we can do is split. You go that way and I'll go this way. He cannot follow us both.

So the man decided to follow Sister Logical.

Sister Mathematical arrives at the convent and is worried about what has happened to Sister Logical.

Then Sister Logical arrives.

SM: Sister Logical!

Thank God you are here! Tell me what happened!

SL: The only logical thing happened. The man couldn't follow us both, so he followed me

SM: Yes, yes! But what happened then?

SL: The only logical thing happened. I started to run as fast as I could and he started to run as fast as he could.

SM: And?

SL: The only logical thing happened. He reached me.

SM: Oh, dear! What did you do?

S : The only logical thing to do. I lifted my dress up.

SM: Oh, Sister! What did the man do?

SL: The only logical thing to do. He pulled down his pants.

SM:Oh, no! What happened then?

SL: Isn't it logical, Sister? A nun with her dress up can run faster than a man with his pants down.

And for those of you who thought it would be a dirty story.......

*the Moral of the Story is:*

LOGIC BEATS MATHS ANYTIME

And Maths cannot survive without Logic.

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)