These are the three levels of deceptiveness and delusion associated with paradigms and monitor how much of the theorist’s mind is still captured by an old paradigm.
Falsehoods aren’t that difficult to discover if one is a good observer of facts and can intelligently compare them to what has or is occurring.
Deciphering and refuting distinctions without a difference is a little more tricky because its an apparent answer that either contains particles of truth and/or is stated in a way that appears to answer a critque but actually doesn’t. This is a favorite of people whose minds are thoroughly captured by a current paradigm and are either trying to spin that paradigm or worse yet actually believe what they are saying. This is rampant in all politics, but most especially with the Trumpists at this time as their cry of “fake news” has almost completely muddied the distinction between truth and falsehood….and worse….their minds are so opague (letting neither light in nor out) that they have a sincerely passionate attachment to that delusion. Certain schools of economics have this same problem.
Unconsciousness/Hypnotism is the normal state of almost everyone regarding paradigms of all sorts and varieties because almost no one even has a scrap of knowledge about the word and concept let alone some actually useful data and understanding of them. This level of delusion is the most difficult to overcome/see through because one must attain an entirely new level of consciousness to see that one is afflicted with it regarding the new paradigm. You see this alot in economics of course especially surrounding various orthodoxies on both the left and right perspectives regarding money, inflation, banking-finance, debt and money creation. Only when one steps entirely outside of the current paradigm are they able to truly defeat paradigmatic Unconsciousness/Hypnotism, and even then seeing the new paradigm entails a lucky set of circumstances like an outsider’s perspective, knowledge of a forgotten and/or falsely invalidated perspective that holds essential data for the recognition of the concept of the paradigm, discovery of a new tool that enlightens solutions to one or more of the problematic aspects of the current paradigm and finally having a set of ethics, intellectual curiosities and perseverance with them despite invalidation, ridicule, apathy and ignoring of them by pundits and “authorities”.