False dilemma

Last updated
Young America's dilemma: Shall I be wise and great, or rich and powerful? (poster from 1901) Young America's dilemma - Dalrymple. LCCN2010651418.jpg
Young America's dilemma: Shall I be wise and great, or rich and powerful? (poster from 1901)

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.

Contents

False dilemmas often have the form of treating two contraries, which may both be false, as contradictories, of which one is necessarily true. Various inferential schemes are associated with false dilemmas, for example, the constructive dilemma, the destructive dilemma or the disjunctive syllogism. False dilemmas are usually discussed in terms of deductive arguments, but they can also occur as defeasible arguments.

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 informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. [1] [2] [3] In its most simple form, called the fallacy of bifurcation, all but two alternatives are excluded. A fallacy is an argument, i.e. a series of premises together with a conclusion, that is unsound, i.e. not both valid and true. Fallacies are usually divided into formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are unsound because of their structure, while informal fallacies are unsound because of their content. [3] [4] [1] [5] The problematic content in the case of the false dilemma has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives. [1] Sometimes a distinction is made between a false dilemma and a false dichotomy. On this view, the term "false dichotomy" refers to the false disjunctive claim while the term "false dilemma" refers not just to this claim but to the argument based on this claim. [1]

Types

Disjunction with contraries

In its most common form, a false dilemma presents the alternatives as contradictories, while in truth they are merely contraries. [5] [6] Two propositions are contradictories if it has to be the case that one is true and the other is false. Two propositions are contraries if at most one of them can be true. But this leaves open the option that both of them might be false, which is not possible in the case of contradictories. [5] Contradictories follow the law of the excluded middle but contraries do not. [6] For example, the sentence "the exact number of marbles in the urn is either 10 or not 10" presents two contradictory alternatives. The sentence "the exact number of marbles in the urn is either 10 or 11" presents two contrary alternatives: the urn could also contain 2 marbles or 17 marbles or... A common form of using contraries in false dilemmas is to force a choice between extremes on the agent: someone is either good or bad, rich or poor, normal or abnormal. Such cases ignore that there is a continuous spectrum between the extremes that is excluded from the choice. [5] While false dilemmas involving contraries, i.e. exclusive options, are a very common form, this is just a special case: there are also arguments with non-exclusive disjunctions that are false dilemmas. [1] For example, a choice between security and freedom does not involve contraries since these two terms are compatible with each other. [5]

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]

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]

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 philosophers and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction". [10] An exception is analytic philosopher John Searle, who called it an incorrect assumption that produces false dichotomies. Searle insists that "it is a condition of the adequacy of a precise theory of an indeterminate phenomenon that it should precisely characterize that phenomenon as indeterminate; and a distinction is no less a distinction for allowing for a family of related, marginal, diverging cases." [11] Similarly, when two options are presented, they often are, although not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities; this may lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. [12] Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy may be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic. [13] This issue arises from real dichotomies in nature, the most prevalent example is the occurrence of an event. It either happened or it did not happen. This ontology sets a logical construct that cannot be reasonably applied to epistemology.

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.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logical disjunction</span> Logical connective OR

In logic, disjunction, also known as logical disjunction or logical or or logical addition or inclusive disjunction, is a logical connective typically notated as and read aloud as "or". For instance, the English language sentence "it is sunny or it is warm" can be represented in logic using the disjunctive formula , assuming that abbreviates "it is sunny" and abbreviates "it is warm".

In classical logic, disjunctive syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises.

In propositional logic, disjunction elimination is the valid argument form and rule of inference that allows one to eliminate a disjunctive statement from a logical proof. It is the inference that if a statement implies a statement and a statement also implies , then if either or is true, then has to be true. The reasoning is simple: since at least one of the statements P and R is true, and since either of them would be sufficient to entail Q, Q is certainly true.

Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences. An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">De Morgan's laws</span> Pair of logical equivalences

In propositional logic and Boolean algebra, De Morgan's laws, also known as De Morgan's theorem, are a pair of transformation rules that are both valid rules of inference. They are named after Augustus De Morgan, a 19th-century British mathematician. The rules allow the expression of conjunctions and disjunctions purely in terms of each other via negation.

In boolean logic, a disjunctive normal form (DNF) is a canonical normal form of a logical formula consisting of a disjunction of conjunctions; it can also be described as an OR of ANDs, a sum of products, or — in philosophical logic — a cluster concept. As a normal form, it is useful in automated theorem proving.

In Boolean logic, a formula is in conjunctive normal form (CNF) or clausal normal form if it is a conjunction of one or more clauses, where a clause is a disjunction of literals; otherwise put, it is a product of sums or an AND of ORs. As a canonical normal form, it is useful in automated theorem proving and circuit theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exclusive or</span> True when either but not both inputs are true

Exclusive or, exclusive disjunction, exclusive alternation, logical non-equivalence, or logical inequality is a logical operator whose negation is the logical biconditional. With two inputs, XOR is true if and only if the inputs differ. With multiple inputs, XOR is true if and only if the number of true inputs is odd.

In mathematical logic, sequent calculus is a style of formal logical argumentation in which every line of a proof is a conditional tautology instead of an unconditional tautology. Each conditional tautology is inferred from other conditional tautologies on earlier lines in a formal argument according to rules and procedures of inference, giving a better approximation to the natural style of deduction used by mathematicians than to David Hilbert's earlier style of formal logic, in which every line was an unconditional tautology. More subtle distinctions may exist; for example, propositions may implicitly depend upon non-logical axioms. In that case, sequents signify conditional theorems in a first-order language rather than conditional tautologies.

Paraconsistent logic is an attempt at a logical system to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing "inconsistency-tolerant" systems of logic, which reject the principle of explosion.

In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion, or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, from a contradiction, any proposition can be inferred; this is known as deductive explosion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logical reasoning</span> Process of drawing correct inferences

Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case. Together, they form an argument. Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is logic.

Destructive dilemma is the name of a valid rule of inference of propositional logic. It is the inference that, if P implies Q and R implies S and either Q is false or S is false, then either P or R must be false. In sum, if two conditionals are true, but one of their consequents is false, then one of their antecedents has to be false. Destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens. The disjunctive version of modus ponens is the constructive dilemma. The destructive dilemma rule can be stated:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dilemma</span> Problem requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives

A dilemma is a problem offering two possibilities, neither of which is unambiguously acceptable or preferable. The possibilities are termed the horns of the dilemma, a clichéd usage, but distinguishing the dilemma from other kinds of predicament as a matter of usage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informal fallacy</span> Form of incorrect argument in natural language

Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context. Fallacies, despite being incorrect, usually appear to be correct and thereby can seduce people into accepting and using them. These misleading appearances are often connected to various aspects of natural language, such as ambiguous or vague expressions, or the assumption of implicit premises instead of making them explicit.

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Logic</span> Study of correct reasoning

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed in natural language while formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tomić, Taeda (2013). "False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition". Argumentation. 27 (4): 347–368. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0. S2CID   144781912.
  2. ↑ Dowden, Bradley. "Fallacies: 6. Partial List of Fallacies". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Vleet, Van Jacob E. (2010). "Introduction". Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide. Upa.
  4. ↑ Hansen, Hans (2020). "Fallacies". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Engel, S. Morris (1982). "4. Fallacies of presumption". With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies.
  6. 1 2 3 4 "The Black-or-White Fallacy". www.fallacyfiles.org. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
  7. ↑ Honderich, Ted (2005). "Dilemmas". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
  8. ↑ Koons, Robert (2017). "Defeasible Reasoning". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
  9. ↑ Walton, Douglas N. (1987). "3. The logic of propositions". Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. John Benjamins.
  10. ↑ Jacques Derrida (1991) Afterword: Toward An Ethic of Discussion, published in the English translation of Limited Inc. , pp. 123–24, 126
  11. ↑ Searle, John. (1983) The Word Turned Upside Down. The New York Review of Books, Volume 30, Number 16, October 27, 1983.
  12. ↑ Baronett, Stan (2008). Logic. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 101. ISBN   9780131933125 . Retrieved 31 October 2015.
  13. ↑ Arfi, Badredine (2010). Linguistic fuzzy logic methods in social sciences (1. ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer. ISBN   9783642133428 . Retrieved 31 October 2015.
  14. ↑ Desantis, Nick (23 January 2012). "Data Shows Bars With Most Noise Complaints, But Is It Just Sound and Fury?". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
  15. ↑ AJ Giannini. "Use of fiction in therapy". Psychiatric Times. 18(7): 56–57, 2001.
  16. ↑ Davies, W. Martin (May 2006). "An 'infusion' approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate" (PDF). Higher Education Research & Development. 25 (2): 179–193. doi:10.1080/07294360600610420. S2CID   144167015 . Retrieved 2019-07-23.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.