FallaciesPresumption
False Equivalence
Also called False balance · Both-sidesism · Bothsidesism
Treating two things as equal because they share one feature, while ignoring big differences in size, kind, or evidence.
Definition
False equivalence treats two things as equal because they share a feature, when the differences between them matter more than the similarity.
The shared feature is usually real, which is what makes the move convincing. Both candidates have said false things. Both the vaccine and the disease carry risks. What’s missing is the scale: how often, how much, and how strong the evidence is on each side.
Form
- A has property P.
- B also has property P.
- Therefore A and B are equally bad, equally risky, or equally credible.
The flaw is in step 3. Sharing a property doesn’t mean sharing it to the same degree, and P may not be the property that matters most.
How to spot it
“Both sides do it,” with no attempt to compare how much.
“They’re all the same” settles a question that has numbers attached to it.
One shared trait carries the whole comparison, and every difference goes unmentioned.
Equal time or equal weight is given to positions with very unequal evidence.
Sizes, rates, and frequencies are missing from a comparison that depends on them.
Examples
01Climate coverage that split the difference
A study of four major US newspapers from 1988 to 2002 found that more than half of their articles on global warming gave roughly equal attention to the scientific consensus and to the claim that humans weren’t causing warming.
What went wrong
The two positions had very different levels of scientific support. Presenting them as equal in the name of balance gave readers a false picture of where the evidence stood. Fair reporting reports how strong each position’s support actually is.
02“Both candidates lie, so it doesn’t matter who wins”
A voter decides there’s no meaningful difference between two candidates because each has made false statements.
What went wrong
That’s possible, but it’s a claim about magnitudes: how often, about what, and with what consequences. “Both have lied” is true of nearly every politician, so it can’t settle which is more honest. A real comparison would check the record.
03“The vaccine has side effects and so does the disease, so it’s a wash”
A parent weighs a vaccine’s rare side effects as equal to the risks of the disease it prevents.
What went wrong
Both carry risk, but the sizes are very different, and the size is the whole question. The useful comparison is how likely each serious outcome is, not whether a risk exists.
Why it persuades
It looks fair-minded. In many settings, treating both sides equally is a good default, so applying it everywhere feels principled. Measuring is also harder than noticing a similarity: anyone can see that both sides have a flaw, but comparing the size of the flaws takes data and effort.
How to counter it
1Ask for the scale
Move the conversation from “both” to “how much.”
Agreed, both have that problem. How big is it in each case? That’s what decides this.
2Name the shared trait, then the differences
Acknowledge what’s similar so you don’t sound like you’re denying it, then lay out what isn’t.
They do have that in common. But here’s where they differ, and I think those differences matter more.
3Separate fairness from balance
When the issue is reporting or debate, point out that being fair to the evidence doesn’t mean giving every view the same weight.
Being fair means showing where the evidence actually points, not splitting the difference.
When it's not a fallacy
Comparisons are legitimate when the shared feature is the one that matters and the magnitudes are actually similar. Sometimes both sides really are comparable, and saying so is accurate, not lazy. The fix is to measure, not to assume the answer either way.
There’s an opposite error too. Crying “false equivalence” can become a way to dodge any comparison that’s uncomfortable. If someone points to a real parallel, the honest response is to check the magnitudes, not to wave the comparison away.
Sources & further reading
- Maxwell Boykoff and Jules Boykoff, “Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the US Prestige Press,” Global Environmental Change 14 (2004): 125–136.
- Douglas Walton, Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno, Argumentation Schemes (Cambridge University Press, 2008). Includes when arguments from analogy hold up.
- Bradley Dowden, “Fallacies”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
End of entry · Back to top