False dilemma
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an
False dilemmas often have the form of treating two
The human liability to commit false dilemmas may be due to the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements, which is to some extent already built into human language. This may also be connected to the tendency to insist on clear distinction while denying the vagueness of many common expressions.
Definition
A false dilemma is an
Types
Disjunction with contraries
In its most common form, a false dilemma presents the alternatives as
Logical forms
In logic, there are two main types of inferences known as dilemmas: the constructive dilemma and the destructive dilemma. In their most simple form, they can be expressed in the following way:[7][6][1]
- simple constructive:
- simple destructive:
The source of the fallacy is found in the disjunctive claim in the third premise, i.e. and respectively. The following is an example of a false dilemma with the simple constructive form: (1) "If you tell the truth, you force your friend into a social tragedy; and therefore, are an immoral person". (2) "If you lie, you are an immoral person (since it is immoral to lie)". (3) "Either you tell the truth, or you lie". Therefore "[y]ou are an immoral person (whatever choice you make in the given situation)".[1] This example constitutes a false dilemma because there are other choices besides telling the truth and lying, like keeping silent.
A false dilemma can also occur in the form of a disjunctive syllogism:[6]
- disjunctive syllogism:
In this form, the first premise () is responsible for the fallacious inference. Lewis's trilemma is a famous example of this type of argument involving three disjuncts: "Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord".[3] By denying that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, one is forced to draw the conclusion that he was God. But this leaves out various other alternatives, for example, that Jesus was a prophet.[3]
Deductive and defeasible arguments
False dilemmas are usually discussed in terms of deductive arguments. But they can also occur as defeasible arguments.[1] A valid argument is deductive if the truth of its premises ensures the truth of its conclusion. For a valid defeasible argument, on the other hand, it is possible for all its premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. The premises merely offer a certain degree of support for the conclusion but do not ensure it.[8] In the case of a defeasible false dilemma, the support provided for the conclusion is overestimated since various alternatives are not considered in the disjunctive premise.[1]
Explanation and avoidance
Part of understanding fallacies involves going beyond logic to empirical psychology in order to explain why there is a tendency to commit or fall for the fallacy in question.[9][1] In the case of the false dilemma, the tendency to simplify reality by ordering it through either-or-statements may play an important role. This tendency is to some extent built into human language, which is full of pairs of opposites.[5] This type of simplification is sometimes necessary to make decisions when there is not enough time to get a more detailed perspective.
In order to avoid false dilemmas, the agent should become aware of additional options besides the prearranged alternatives. Critical thinking and creativity may be necessary to see through the false dichotomy and to discover new alternatives.[1]
Relation to distinctions and vagueness
Some
Examples
False choice
The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground on an issue. A common argument against noise pollution laws involves a false choice. It might be argued that in New York City noise should not be regulated, because if it were, a number of businesses would be required to close. This argument assumes that, for example, a bar must be shut down to prevent disturbing levels of noise emanating from it after midnight. This ignores the fact that law could require the bar to lower its noise levels, or install soundproofing structural elements to keep the noise from excessively transmitting onto others' properties.[14]
Black-and-white thinking
In psychology, a phenomenon related to the false dilemma is "black-and-white thinking" or "thinking in black and white". There are people who routinely engage in black-and-white thinking, an example of which is someone who categorizes other people as all good or all bad.[15]
Similar concepts
Various different terms are used to refer to false dilemmas. Some of the following terms are equivalent to the term "false dilemma", some refer to special forms of false dilemmas and others refer to closely related concepts.
- bifurcation fallacy
- black-or-white fallacy
- denying a conjunct (similar to a false dichotomy: see Formal fallacy § Denying a conjunct)
- double bind
- either/or fallacy
- fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses
- fallacy of the excluded middle
- fallacy of the false alternative[16]
- false binary
- false choice
- false dichotomy
- invalid disjunction
- no middle ground
See also
- Attention theft
- Bivalence
- Choice architecture
- Degrees of truth
- Dichotomy
- Euthyphro dilemma
- Fallacy of the single cause
- Half-truth
- Hobson's choice
- Law of excluded middle
- Lewis' trilemma
- Loaded question
- Love–hate relationship
- Many-valued logic
- Mise-en-scène
- Morton's fork
- Mutually exclusive
- Narrowcasting
- Nolan Chart
- Nondualism
- None of the above
- Obscurantism
- Pascal's Wager
- Perspectivism
- Political systems
- One-party system
- Two-party system
- Rogerian argument
- Show election
- Slippery slope
- Sorites paradox
- Splitting (psychology)
- Trick question
- Strange loop § In cognitive science
- Straw man
- Thinking outside the box
- Unreasonable
- You're either with us, or against us
- Zero-sum thinking
References
- ^ S2CID 144781912.
- ^ Dowden, Bradley. "Fallacies: 6. Partial List of Fallacies". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
- ^ a b c d Vleet, Van Jacob E. (2010). "Introduction". Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide. Upa.
- ^ Hansen, Hans (2020). "Fallacies". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
- ^ a b c d e f Engel, S. Morris (1982). "4. Fallacies of presumption". With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies.
- ^ a b c d "The Black-or-White Fallacy". www.fallacyfiles.org. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
- ^ Honderich, Ted (2005). "Dilemmas". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Koons, Robert (2017). "Defeasible Reasoning". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
- ^ Walton, Douglas N. (1987). "3. The logic of propositions". Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. John Benjamins.
- Limited Inc., pp. 123–24, 126
- ^ Searle, John. (1983) The Word Turned Upside Down. The New York Review of Books, Volume 30, Number 16, October 27, 1983.
- ]
- ISBN 9783642133428. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
- ^ Desantis, Nick (23 January 2012). "Data Shows Bars With Most Noise Complaints, But Is It Just Sound and Fury?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 August 2016. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
- ^ AJ Giannini. "Use of fiction in therapy". Psychiatric Times. 18(7): 56–57, 2001.
- S2CID 144167015. Retrieved 2019-07-23.
External links
- The Black-or-White Fallacy entry in The Fallacy Files