# Balance fallacy

(Redirected from False balance)
 Part of the series onLogic and rhetoric Key articles General logic Bad logic v - t - e
 “”There's a kind of notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! A bloke who's been a professor of dentistry for 40 years doesn't have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door! —Dara Ó Briain[1]

The balance fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal or comparable value regardless of their respective merits, which (in turn) can lead to the conclusion that the answer to a problem is always to be found between two extremes. The latter is effectively an inverse false dilemma, discarding the two extremes rather than the middle.

While the rational position on a topic is often between two extremes, this cannot be assumed without actually considering the evidence. Sometimes the extreme position is actually the correct one, and sometimes the entire spectrum of belief is wrong, and truth exists in an orthogonal direction that hasn't yet been considered.

Balance is often a problem in the media, where confrontational or adversarial journalism might present more of a controversy about some topic than actually exists, giving equal time to fringe minority viewpoints to draw in viewers. It is effectively the opposite of bias — whereas bias over-emphasises one view to the detriment of another legitimate, well-supported view to give the impression of one being favoured, false balance over-emphasises a minority or unsupported view to the detriment of a well-supported view to give the impression that neither is favoured.

## Alternate names

• false balance
• false compromise
• middle ground
• splitting the difference

## Form

There is a choice to make between doing X or doing Y. Therefore, the answer is somewhere between X and Y.

The problem is that it's possible that either X or Y is entirely true, meaning that only partially doing the right thing makes little sense. This argument is generally built around the idea that the middle point between two extremes is equal parts of each side and therefore equally acceptable to both sides; but as the saying goes, half a kitten is not half as cute, it's a bloody mess.

## Problems

 “”By creating a sense that discourse is all one extreme against the other or one cynic against another, CNN has added to the corrosive cynicism that permeates politics...by having every discussion of climate change include one scientist who says it is real and manmade against another who denies it, CNN has contributed to an atmosphere where “facts” are not real—you can find an expert anywhere to deny them. —Norm Ornstein[2]

The application of the fallacy leads to major problems:

• Firstly, it can lead to equal exposure to arguments despite their lack of merits or relevance. This may arise due to a misunderstanding of probability; that two outcomes or positions lead to a probability of 50:50 for each, and so both deserve an equal chance to put themselves forward. In fact, probability is not necessarily equal.
• Secondly, it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides, when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong. In this context the fallacy is sometimes known as the argument to moderation or argumentum ad temperantiam, and may be the result of attempts to reach a compromise between mutually exclusive positions, as often found in political debate where there is not necessarily an objective "truth," as such, to be found behind a political policy.
• Thirdly, the currency of experts is over-inflated, and one could argued that the bubble has popped. When CNN is presenting D0ctor Joe Bloggs as a climate change "expert" against someone with a Princeton degree who has dedicated their life to the topic, the public now needs an expert to examine credentials before they can examine evidence given by experts. Conversely, the BBC instructed their reporters to stop giving credence to climate deniers in 2014.

Avoiding the balance fallacy requires objective criteria for assessing arguments, and cannot rely on just giving all arguments equal exposure for the sake of fairness. Arguments must be assessed using criteria such as formal logic, scholarly consensus and empirical evidence to see if a legitimate controversy exists between two viewpoints. Avoiding the balance fallacy does not entitle someone to the freedom to reject any and all criticism because they claim to have sufficiently "proven" their position, however.

Wikipedia avoids the balance fallacy (to some degree) with its policy of not giving undue weight[3] to minority viewpoints or fringe theories[4] in its articles. RationalWiki, on the other hand, avoids the balance fallacy by calling fringe theories bullshit from start to finish despite the fact that some of the theories of the greatest scientists of all time were considered "fringe" theories in their time. But of course fringe theories are so absurd they must be bullshit, right? We will just ignore the fact that we are appealing to the stone here. [note 1]

## Examples

• The Missouri compromise, which tried to find a "middle ground" between abolitionists and pro-slavery forces. Of course, the abolitionists were entirely correct to want to outlaw slavery completely but this was seen as too extreme for many at the time.
• "Some say austerity in a depressed economy is bad. Others say austerity in a depressed economy is good. Therefore, some austerity in a depressed economy is the correct answer." This one's fairly common in America, where there is no single left-wing party to promote the idea of spending more in a depressed economy, so the debate is between centrists and right-wingers.[5]
• "One of my friends wants me to use a pharmacists prescription to treat my illness, another one of my friends wants me to use holistic medicine. Therefore I'll take only half of my prescription and use half of the holistic's recommendations."
• "Joe thinks the Packers will win the game. Frank thinks the Eagles will win. That means the game will probably end in a tie."
• "Gay people want the right to marry. Fundamentalists don't want gay people to marry. Therefore we should just give gay people civil unions and be on our merry way."[6] (Or on a similar note: "Gay people want the right to serve in the military. Conservatives don't want gay people in the military. Therefore, let's allow gay people to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet.")
• Conservatives say "global warming isn't real." Liberals believe in man-made climate change. Therefore, climate change is real, but we're not the ones causing it.[7]
• It's largely accepted that the only reason most mainstream papers carry Mallard Fillmore (apt title) is to act as a counter-weight to keep conservatives happy, since they were complaining when the only political cartoon in most papers was Doonesbury.
• Men's Rights activists are totally for "equality" of the sexes, though concessions have to be made for the biological and evolutionary differences in men and women. This is a reasoned argument. Alas it sets off alarm bells for anyone who has dealt with MRAs for any length of time, as their arguments quickly snowball into apologia for rape and discrimination.

### Politics

In general, politics is a process of compromise between interest groups making extreme demands; for example, the gun control debate does have people on one side who want to ban kitchen knives and people on the other who think it should be lawful for civilians to own nuclear weapons. Indeed, in politics the term "extremist" has a connotation of unreasonableness attached to it. However, it is still true that extremists are not wrong simply because they are extreme; in Nazi Germany Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews, while the Jews didn't want him to kill any of them. Most would not argue the logically correct answer was to kill half the Jews.

It may sound hyperbolic, but remember that the Alt-right has become a legitimate political movement. Donald Trump can openly call for internment camps, accuse the President of being a foreign agent, and refuse to release his tax returns (Romney tried this stunt and got battered for his evasion), and the press is forced to entertain his point of view. America hasn't changed that much in four years, but the media landscape has. Cable networks like CNN are desperate. Their biggest share of viewers are older and whiter than the general public, and that skews Republican. They simply cannot afford to appear biased (read: liberal) in calling a major Republican figure a liar. So, they create a false equivalency to hedge.

### Teaching the controversy

An example of the balance fallacy is found in the Discovery Institute's campaign for American schools to "teach the controversy" in science lessons, giving equal weight to the theory of evolution and intelligent design criticisms of it, although these criticisms are reliant on creationist religious views overwhelmingly discredited within the scientific community.

### Health scares

 “”A lot of these groups are insisting that I "present both sides of the argument", and I'm not going to do that either, because — well, for the same reasons that I wouldn't present both sides if a group of people decided that pancakes make you gay. They don't. And there's no point in discussing it. —Jimmy Kimmel[8]

While evolution bears the brunt of the balance fallacy, issues of health and science suffer from news reports wanting to put forward balanced views. Despite evidence and the vast, vast majority of doctors agreeing that vaccines do not cause autism, the media often give 50:50 airtime to the mainstream view and doctors who say otherwise. This usually isn't helped by the likes of the British Medical Association (during the MMR scare of 2000-2004) bending over backwards to find in the media the people with the contrary viewpoints they want to put to the public.

The main issue with health scares is that while balance is sought in terms of content and exposure, it's rarely ever achieved in terms of what the public perceive, not least because if balance was properly achieved, the audience wouldn't go away thinking that there was a controversy. In debates regarding health, the evidence side will usually be represented by a doctor who states facts, figures and research, while the paranoid side will be represented by some "human interest" (Jenny McCarthy for example). While the "human interest" side would cite no facts or figures, their emotive stories resonate far more with the public who can empathise with an individual more than they can do with a clinical trial. Therefore the message received by the audience is more "individuals are concerned and are suffering, why aren't scientists taking note of them" rather than the more accurate "the plural of anecdote is not data."

### In discussions

Simply drawing attention to some perceived flaw of a position or group can be seen as a wholesale attack on the entire position or group. Thus, people often engage in the balance fallacy not out of any true belief that both flaws that they are mentioning are equal, but rather out of desire to avoid tu quoque attacks. This then often backfires and results in accusations of being a concern troll.

### Broderism

 “”All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. —George Orwell on Broderism sixty years before Broderism.[9]

In political journalism, a similar phenomenon often referred to as "Broderism," after the late David Broder, former senior editor at the Washington Post. It is often said that there is no single scandal, no matter how overwhelmingly partisan, that he couldn't find some instance of the other party doing something maybe, kind of, almost close to being in the ballpark of the same thing, so that every thing wrong in Washington is the fault of both parties. An example of Broderism would be that, while many Republican elected officials have embraced Birtherism wholeheartedly, these one or two Democratic supporters are 9/11 truthers,[10][11][12] so each party is equally crazy.

On Fark, similar arguments are referred to as "BSABSVR," short for "Both Sides Are Bad, So Vote Republican."

## False equivalence

The book Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left by Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell contains a chapter on False Equivalence.

 “”...You might not remember false equivalence from logic class. Why? Because progressive political writers made it up. They invented the term just for conservatives. False equivalence is the ultimate manifestation of progressives' relativist worldview because the definition of the term can change at the whim of the person speaking. Essentially, what progressives mean by false equivalence is that any comparison that makes them look bad is, by definition, false. It's convenient, but intellectually vacuous.[13]

Their examples of FE include progressives being more likely than conservatives to oppose nuclear power. "Does that make progressives anti-science? No. That's false equivalence."[14][15] They also cite the results of a survey that had Republicans getting more science-related questions correct: The Audacious Epigone, "Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are." March 26, 2011. Global warming wasn't part of that survey, but they cite another to demonstrate that it depends on whether one is asking about "global warming" or "climate change." "Many in science have abandoned the term "global warming" because it was scientifically incorrect. Now the accepted term is the more scientific "climate change," meaning climate instability. Yet progressives see no real distinction between the terms - a recent poll showed that about 87 percent of Democrats believed in both global warming and climate change. By comparison, only 44 percent of Republicans believed in global warming, while 60.2 percent accepted climate change. On this particular issue, conservatives actually do care about the scientific meaning of words in a way that does not seem to matter to progressives."[16][17]