False Dilemma - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-06-27T21:37:00Z

clean up & uniformity

DavidE: related fallacy

2011-05-16T16:36:27Z

related fallacy

DavidE: Thank you for doing the merge. I guess we no longer need the merge tag.

2011-04-14T21:46:39Z

Thank you for doing the merge. I guess we no longer need the merge tag.

Ed Poor: copied entire text of All or nothing

2011-04-14T13:07:13Z

copied entire text of All or nothing

DavidE: propose merge; add example; em dashes

2011-04-07T16:25:27Z

propose merge; add example; em dashes

DavidE: Absent dissent in almost a month, I have done the merge.

2011-03-04T21:49:57Z

Absent dissent in almost a month, I have done the merge.

DavidE: propose merge

2011-02-08T23:47:53Z

propose merge

AnthonyDW at 16:43, January 17, 2011

2011-01-17T16:43:55Z

SamSnith: added additional examples

2009-02-02T06:52:27Z

added additional examples

ArthurA at 18:04, January 15, 2009

2009-01-15T18:04:28Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-A '''false dilemma''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which a set of options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive or as if they're the only possible options, when in fact they are not. <ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref> It is used to give the impression that if one rejects another's argument, he must necessarily embrace an absurd or unappealing stance.
+A '''false dilemma''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which a set of options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive or as if they're the only possible options, when in fact they are not.<ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref> It is used to give the impression that if one rejects another's argument, he must necessarily embrace an absurd or unappealing stance.
 A '''false dichotomy''' is a special case of a false dilemma, in which only two options are presented.  One side of an argument presents to the other two unpleasant, opposite, and extreme alternatives, alleging that they are the only choices open in the matter up for debate.  The fallacy lies in disregarding the middle ground, or failing to credit the range of disagreement on the issue.
 The '''all or nothing''' [[fallacy]] assumes that things must be completely one way or another.
-* ... it is part of the most primitive of human responses: The Fight or Flight Response. When faced with a life-threatening situation, we must make a snap decision and act on it. There is no time for 'maybe this', or 'maybe that'. Either decision will create an emotional reaction to allow us to fight or flee to the maximum of our ability. <ref>[http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/Understanding_Depression/all_nothing.htm Depression:Understand it, Treat it, Beat it]</ref>
+* ... it is part of the most primitive of human responses: The Fight or Flight Response. When faced with a life-threatening situation, we must make a snap decision and act on it. There is no time for 'maybe this', or 'maybe that'. Either decision will create an emotional reaction to allow us to fight or flee to the maximum of our ability.<ref>[http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/Understanding_Depression/all_nothing.htm Depression:Understand it, Treat it, Beat it]</ref>
 Academics call it the "bifurcation fallacy".<ref>http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm</ref>
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ==Examples==
-*"Either you're pro-life or a supporter of the [[death penalty]]." &#8212; This is not a contradiction, since Christians can trace both positions to Scripture (Exodus 20:13<ref>Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill."</ref> and 21:23<ref>Exodus 21:23, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..."</ref>, respectively). The distinction is obviously one between killing an innocent and inflicting justice upon a criminal, yet liberals use this either to accuse the [[Bible]] (and consequently, God himself) of inconsistency or to support their position against capital punishment.
+*"Either you're pro-life or a supporter of the [[death penalty]]." &#8212; This is not a contradiction, since Christians can trace both positions to Scripture (Exodus 20:13<ref>Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill."</ref> and 21:23,<ref>Exodus 21:23, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..."</ref> respectively). The distinction is obviously one between killing an innocent and inflicting justice upon a criminal, yet liberals use this either to accuse the [[Bible]] (and consequently, God himself) of inconsistency or to support their position against capital punishment.
 *"If history as depicted in the Bible cannot be supported by empirical evidence, it must be false." &#8212; Another obvious fallacy, since a) nobody can rule out future discoveries that would corroborate the Bible; b) all "evidence" humans can possibly obtain would be a bad measure to check divine revelation; and c) misunderstanding and misinterpretation on the part of humans would doom any such effort.
 *"If you oppose [[Barack Obama]]/[[Hillary Clinton]], you're a racist/sexist!" They are  false dichotomies because they ignore many possible reasons for opposing Obama/clinton.
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==References==
 <references/>
-[[Category:philosophy]]
+[[Category:Philosophy]]
 [[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
 [[Category:Liberal Traits]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, May 16, 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Of course, not all dilemmas are false dilemmas. Also, a false dilemma should not be confused with a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]].''		Of course, not all dilemmas are false dilemmas. Also, a false dilemma should not be confused with a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]].''
		+
		+	The false dilemma is the opposite of the [[middle-ground fallacy]], the fallacy of assuming without justification that a middle position between two extremes must be correct ''simply because'' it is the middle position. Both arguments are fallacies because the mere existence of two extreme positions says nothing about the existence or the rightness of the middle ground.

	==Examples==		==Examples==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, April 14, 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~{{merge from\|All or nothing}}~~
	A '''false dilemma''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which a set of options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive or as if they're the only possible options, when in fact they are not. <ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref> It is used to give the impression that if one rejects another's argument, he must necessarily embrace an absurd or unappealing stance.		A '''false dilemma''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which a set of options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive or as if they're the only possible options, when in fact they are not. <ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref> It is used to give the impression that if one rejects another's argument, he must necessarily embrace an absurd or unappealing stance.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, April 14, 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:

	A '''false dichotomy''' is a special case of a false dilemma, in which only two options are presented. One side of an argument presents to the other two unpleasant, opposite, and extreme alternatives, alleging that they are the only choices open in the matter up for debate. The fallacy lies in disregarding the middle ground, or failing to credit the range of disagreement on the issue.		A '''false dichotomy''' is a special case of a false dilemma, in which only two options are presented. One side of an argument presents to the other two unpleasant, opposite, and extreme alternatives, alleging that they are the only choices open in the matter up for debate. The fallacy lies in disregarding the middle ground, or failing to credit the range of disagreement on the issue.
		+
		+	The '''all or nothing''' [[fallacy]] assumes that things must be completely one way or another.
		+	* ... it is part of the most primitive of human responses: The Fight or Flight Response. When faced with a life-threatening situation, we must make a snap decision and act on it. There is no time for 'maybe this', or 'maybe that'. Either decision will create an emotional reaction to allow us to fight or flee to the maximum of our ability. <ref>[http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/Understanding_Depression/all_nothing.htm Depression:Understand it, Treat it, Beat it]</ref>
		+	Academics call it the "bifurcation fallacy".<ref>http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm</ref>

	Of course, not all dilemmas are false dilemmas. Also, a false dilemma should not be confused with a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]].''		Of course, not all dilemmas are false dilemmas. Also, a false dilemma should not be confused with a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]].''

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 A '''false dilemma''' is a [[logical fallacy]] in which a set of options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive or as if they're the only possible options, when in fact they are not. <ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref> It is used to give the impression that if one rejects another's argument, he must necessarily embrace an absurd or unappealing stance.
 A '''false dichotomy''' is a special case of a false dilemma, in which only two options are presented.  One side of an argument presents to the other two unpleasant, opposite, and extreme alternatives, alleging that they are the only choices open in the matter up for debate.  The fallacy lies in disregarding the middle ground, or failing to credit the range of disagreement on the issue.
-Of course, not all dilemmas are false dilemmas.
+Of course, not all dilemmas are false dilemmas.  Also, a false dilemma should not be confused with a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]].''
 ==Examples==
-*"Either you're pro-life or a supporter of the [[death penalty]]." - This is not a contradiction, since Christians can trace both positions to Scripture (Exodus 20:13<ref>Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill."</ref> and 21:23<ref>Exodus 21:23, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..."</ref>, respectively). The distinction is obviously one between killing an innocent and inflicting justice upon a criminal, yet liberals use this either to accuse the [[Bible]] (and consequently, God himself) of inconsistency or to support their position against capital punishment.
+*"Either you're pro-life or a supporter of the [[death penalty]]." &#8212; This is not a contradiction, since Christians can trace both positions to Scripture (Exodus 20:13<ref>Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill."</ref> and 21:23<ref>Exodus 21:23, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..."</ref>, respectively). The distinction is obviously one between killing an innocent and inflicting justice upon a criminal, yet liberals use this either to accuse the [[Bible]] (and consequently, God himself) of inconsistency or to support their position against capital punishment.
-*"If history as depicted in the Bible cannot be supported by empirical evidence, it must be false." - Another obvious fallacy, since a) nobody can rule out future discoveries that would corroborate the Bible; b) all "evidence" humans can possibly obtain would be a bad measure to check divine revelation; and c) misunderstanding and misinterpretation on the part of humans would doom any such effort.
+*"If history as depicted in the Bible cannot be supported by empirical evidence, it must be false." &#8212; Another obvious fallacy, since a) nobody can rule out future discoveries that would corroborate the Bible; b) all "evidence" humans can possibly obtain would be a bad measure to check divine revelation; and c) misunderstanding and misinterpretation on the part of humans would doom any such effort.
 *"If you oppose [[Barack Obama]]/[[Hillary Clinton]], you're a racist/sexist!" They are  false dichotomies because they ignore many possible reasons for opposing Obama/clinton.
+*"If we allow that activity, then everyone will do it, to the exclusion of activities that we need to have happen." &#8212; That [[collectivist]] argument ignores the possibility that enough people will still be left to do the needed activity, as well as the possibility that some people will do both.
 ==References==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, February 8, 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{merge from\|False dichotomy}}
		+
	'''False dilemma''' is a [[logic]]al fallacy in which a set of options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive or as if they're the only possible options, when in fact they are not. <ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref> It is used to give the impression that if one rejects another's argument, he must necessarily embrace an absurd or unappealing stance.		'''False dilemma''' is a [[logic]]al fallacy in which a set of options are presented as if they are mutually exclusive or as if they're the only possible options, when in fact they are not. <ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</ref> It is used to give the impression that if one rejects another's argument, he must necessarily embrace an absurd or unappealing stance.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, January 17, 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:
	[[Category:philosophy]]		[[Category:philosophy]]
	[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]		[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
		+	[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 A false dichotomy is a special case of a false dilemma, in which only two options are presented.
-An example of a false dichotomy is the argument "if you oppose [[Barack Obama]], you're a racist!" It is a false dichotomy because it ignores many possible reasons for opposing Obama.
+Example of a false dichotomies include the arguments "if you oppose [[Barack Obama]]/[[Hillary Clinton]], you're a racist/sexist!" They are  false dichotomies because they ignore many possible reasons for opposing Obama/clinton.
 Of course, not all dilemmas are false dilemmas.