Video Podcast 21 — The False Dilemma Fallacy

By -
I managed to keep this one under seven minutes.

 The False Dilemma Fallacy is used frequently. It is slightly misnamed, sometimes used unwittingly, but I have found that it is usually a cunning attempt to force someone to choose between two possibilities when there are really more than two. Haywire the Stalker was kind enough to provide some examples, and appears to justify his bad logic, playing the victim card and indulging in blatant selective citing (which could be another podcast).

 One example that I forgot to include in the video and remembered after it was complete is often found on Facebook. People will post something along the lines of, "If you care about this problem, you will share this picture". It implies that you either care (demonstrated by sharing the thing) or that you do not care (by not sharing). Possibilities that were omitted include:
  • You spotted the fallacy and will not participate even though you really do care about the issue
  • Thinking that sharing does not help solve the problem
  • Someone was busy and forgot to come back and share it.
I've seen things related to this where someone says, "I'm updating my friend list, comment if you want to stay on it". Really? People have to do this to prove to you that they want to remain "friends" on Facebook (or whatever)? False dilemma. Some of the above possibilities apply, but also that someone simply did not see the message and still fails the "test". I think that kind of thing is shallow, and if I'm "unfriended" because of it, so much the better for me.

 Although rather manipulative, I think that people doing this on Facebook usually have innocent motives and are simply being careless. Some of us will not post those things, or take out the ultimatums.

 I can think of three cautions that are needed here. First, there's no need to jump at someone and say, "Aha! You've just used the either/or fallacy!" when someone is simply making conversation. Second, if you do point out the fallacy, be ready to show one or two options that were left out. Third, sometimes there really are only two possibilities.

Logical fallacies are conversation stoppers and destroy arguments. How can someone build on a flawed foundation?



Location: Spring Lake Trailer Park, Kingston, NY

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more