False Dichotomies rule the stage during this day... we should learn to recognize them... [logical fallacy]
I am always trying to improve my understanding of critical thinking. I believe I will always need to keep quizzing and challenging myself on these things. I find as I learn them and work hard to internalize identification of logical fallacies within my every day thought that they become very valuable tools. I wanted to share observations about false dichotomies, which are also sometimes called false dilemma, or false choice.
I typically focus on Generalizations, Appeals to Authority, Ad-hominem, Red Herring, and Bandwagon type logical fallacies and I believe they are all pretty well understood by me at this point. The one I've started paying attention to more recently is the false dichotomy.
A false dichotomy is basically distilling a situation to the you are EITHER THIS or YOU ARE THAT. It is framing an argument such that there are two choices. The fact of the matter is simply because a person states an argument framed as though there are only two choices that doesn't mean their statement is logical or a fact. In reality, such binary statements are far too simplistic and tend to leave out other choices.
"You are either with me, or you are against me." Which leaves out people that might be FOR some of the things you do, and AGAINST others. Which leaves out people that are neither for/against you because they don't know you, don't recognize you, don't care about you, etc.
Now this carries on heavily into the political, and popular culture realms today. It is also having a corrupting influence on scientific journalism.
A common false dichotomy which I saw today is that you either accept climate change, or you are a denier. This presumes a lot. This statement is always used by supporters of what the person is referring to as climate change. The so-called deniers in this dichotomy likely have false dichotomies as well that they will speak, but they would not be framed this way. Since this one is framed in the popular way of "Friend, or Enemy" or for sporting people "Home or Visitor".
We are raised on false dichotomies. We are practically conditioned to try to view the world as though there are two types of people. "Cowboys and Indians", "Cops and Robbers", "Axis and Allies", "Capitalist and Communist", "Left or Right", "Republican or Democrat", etc.
The truth of the matter is that in all of the cases above there are actually more choices than just the two that are being forced upon us.
Climate Change
Let's revisit the Climate Change Denier topic since it is what inspired my post this morning. I was reading this article Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'it's like disputing gravity' I freely admit by the loaded click bait (it worked, I clicked it) title that I wasn't expecting it to be anything other than an opinion/editorial piece. It did remind me of false dichotomies simply due to one thing they said.
This is a common false dichotomy. It is essentially you are a climate change supporter, or you are a denier. There are actually more choices than that. The climate has been changing throughout history. It is ignorant to assume it will stop changing due to the existence of man. So while there are at least half a dozen different stances on this issue I can come up with now, the truth of the matter is that there are people that believe the Climate Is Changing and simply do not believe that it is primarily due to Human Activity. There are those that believe it is due to human activity. There are those that do not believe the climate is changing, or that the way it is changing is actually different than what is being reported. There are those that don't know, and there are those that don't care. Those are 6 different perspectives that I thought of just now and they may not cover the complete list. It is not an EITHER/OR situation.
There are also people that believe the Climate is Changing and that it is primarily due to human activities, but they do not believe in the proposed solutions such as carbon taxes, and other methods. They see those as power grabs, and taxation that will not stop the worst offenders, and really would not address the problems at all. That is a 7th type of person.
Anti-Vaxxer
Another popular false dichotomy is that of Vaccine Supporter or Anti-Vaxxer. This too is a false dichotomy. There are also people who believe Vaccines are important, they just don't believe they are getting the testing and improvements that medication should. Vaccines are treated as a collateral damage type thing. Some people will have adverse effects, some people will die. The statistics are usually with the vaccines. Some people simply believe that these should be constantly be improved. Collateral damage should not be deemed as ACCEPTABLE. It should be accidental and all steps should be taken to try to eliminate or reduce such damage in the future. So people can believe in Vaccines and still disagree with the politics, lobbyists, and big pharmaceutical company approach to how they are handled. That is only a third type out of the FOR or AGAINST. There are many types as well, though it is framed popularly as a you are either WITH us or AGAINST us type situation when that is logically false and does not accurately describe the situation.
I am going to be keeping my eyes, and ears open for false dichotomies and try to get better identifying them so I do not fall for the emotionally loaded fallacy, and also so I can try to reduce my chance of using false dichotomies myself. I hope those of you that read this found this to be food for thought, and potentially useful.
Steem On!
EDIT: I just stumbled upon this video when I was talking about the Hegelian Dialectic and this indeed could be largely responsible for a lot of the false dichotomies.
Nice! Glad you are talking about fallacies. Pivotal for humanity to understand how consciousness functions and errors in reasoning. I have a series called Logic Comic, the last entry is Argument from Fallacy, or the Fallacy Fallacy - Logic Comic (Pt.3). I'll bring it back with another comic ;) I have a ways to go to get to 'F' though hehe
I try to use critical thinking a lot. It is not something we master. We can only constantly strive to get better at it I believe. We kind of have to take the initiative to learn it on our own as it is VERY rare to encounter any course that covers it well in modern education. It happens, but it is rare.
It's part of life and living. Gotta learn as you live. Sometimes we notice particular errors and name them and describe them for others to learn. Correcting and improving thinking is a life long task indeed :)
Hahaha... I enjoyed that comic. For some reason I was not following you though we interact every so often. I have corrected that.
Great article --
p.s. due to a glitch in Steemit only your first tag shows up if you use 5 tags. Reduce it to 4 tags and they will all show up. You should get more views that way.
Thanks for the tip. I tend to use 5 tags.
I agree, this is good practice not only in critical thinking but also in rhetoric. So I spent some time thinking of a few more good false dichotomies I could recognize. Notice how many of these are political points? I think this fallacy, among others are commonly used in politics...
Abortion
Gun Control
Welfare
Drunk driving
Then there are many more social aspects too...
Being religious or not
Being a Capitalist or not
Being a Libertarian or not
Being gay or straight
Being a slut or a prude
Here is a simple one "I am Right, you are wrong" :) I find it often the case where both sides can be right about some things and wrong about others. It is rarely so straightforward as "right and wrong" unless we are talking mathematical proofs or something like that... though I've had fun with that an absolutes before too.
Yep... we've been conditioned I think to do this naturally. It's pretty messed up.
I.m.o. the problem is not the that people disagree. But that one person or group forces their "right" on the other with violence. Such as mandatory vaccination, or co2 taxes. But maybe I'm wrong about that. ;)
Disagreement is normal. It can be a positive thing. It is how a person deals with disagreement that is important. Though not being aware of Critical Thinking/Logical Fallacies etc can make things that you SHOULD logically disagree with not be disagreed with simply because of failure to see the logical fallacies being used against you/us. So it is important to understand Generalizations, Appeals to Authority, Ad-Hominem attacks, Red Herrings, Bandwagon, False Dichotomies, etc.
There is a positive aspect of knowing those too. It gives tools for discussion for when both sides are aware of logical fallacies they can cut through the bullshit/fluff that is all smoke and mirrors and just get down to the issues.
Thank you for highlighting this important aspect of critical thinking. We need to use this thinking when we analyze what we are consuming, and when we publish our own thoughts for others to see. I like to always consider one more layer: not all writing is intended to be a logical argument.
So much of the way humans interact with one another is through storytelling and other methods of discourse, where we use devices like hyperbole and synecdoche to make a point. These devices purposefully leave out clarifying details and explicit elements, with the goal of making a broader point. So much depends on unwritten contexts, including culture of the audience and internal biases of both the originator and consumer of the content.
We need to hold our content creators responsible for making their point carefully (even if not always logically). We need to hold ourselves responsible as global consumers of content to know when to consider the logic of something, and when to consider the point being made.
It's tough to make one's purpose explicit in certain forums, and recognizing logical falacies like this is a great step forward in making our interactions and collaboration on a global scale more effective and meaningful. Thank you for being a part of that.
Thank you for a well thought out response. I believe making a point is always the goal. My main purpose when I write about logical fallacies is basically what you hinted at. It helps us recognize when it is being used on us, and it helps us avoid using them ourselves. I totally believe we can make points without relying on false dichotomies, generalizations, appeals to authority, etc. Yet, we kind of need to REALLY understand how to identify them before we can keep them out of our own work. Each step in understanding critical thinking let's us see through a lot of the fallacies being used around us to manipulate us.
So true.
I seem to have stated the obvious goal, and many of us (people in general) can make points without logical fallacies. We could also hopefully learn to recognize such things, and filter our interpretation of what we consume based on those that we notice. However, I would caution against assuming the next best step after recognizing one is always to keep from falling for it. This presents an opportunity to fill in context to get a better sense of the bigger picture.
As I read my previous comment, I realize that I think I was trying to point out this additional filter it could likewise be beneficial to try to employ, the use of which is possibly especially important upon encountering logical fallacies: let's call it "reading between the lines".
If we evaluate whether the fallacy was simply a mistake, we can possibly glean the intention of a statement more clearly. To look beyond the galaxy (strike that; "fallacy" autocorrect, but I'd like to keep it) for the intent of the statement rather than looking away, and missing the point.
I'm assuming that by "manipulate us", you do not intend to address only intentional misrepresentation; indeed, we'll come across unintentional false dichotomies, where deception is not the purpose. But I'm also thinking about that brand of communication where this kind of element of argument is used intentionally (though not necessarily something nefarious). I might say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." But I might actually intend for my audience to understand something different based on the implicit context around my statement.
All that to say: I sense that your goal is mainly to keep from using logical fallacies, and to keep from allowing their use to convince you of something. Recognizing them helps accomplish that. Sometimes, however—as you've pointed out, there is more to it. There is occasion where false dichotomy makes sense as a literary device.
Afterall, you are either going to be duped by false dichotomy, or you'll reject it.
Most of the information out there is of this type. So yes, you really have no choice but to read between the lines and try to put the puzzles together. There is really NO source I won't read or listen to. I just use my own mind when doing so. :)
I only read this post now (for various reasons related to real life), and I as always like the fact that you are those who do not believe that the world is either black or white. There are indeed many shades of grey!
Yeah, you are definitely right. I also believe if I label something Black I am wrong and it might actually be purple. ;)
depends on our eyes ^^
Great post... i have been thinking of checking up on this exact topic also recently, but now i have your article. Thanks :-)
I am constantly just trying to get better at it. As I get better at recognizing these things I can see a direct impact on my life. This is really important stuff. I am pretty sure I know why they don't teach it.
Knowing it makes it far too easy to see through a lot of the B.S. which ends up being almost everything. :)
I look forward to your findings as well. Never stop learning.
This was my first read on Steemit (and it was good), thank you! The crux of the issue here can be seen very clearly from the POV of mathematics. Classical logic is based upon rigid dichotomic thinking, but different logics abound and turn out to be quite useful. For example, certain axioms (which would be inconsistent under classical logic) coupled with intuitionistic logic (where the law of exluded middle, that any proposition must be true or false, is not assumed) lead to a continuum that is both closer to our intuitions of what a continuum should be (e.g. with "infinitesimals") and simpler to work with for certain important purposes, like providing a foundation for calculus (without limits and epsilons) and for differential geometry.
A beautiful introduction to this subject with minimum pre-requisites is Bell's "A Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis".
Hahaha. Thank you for the DEEP response. It is appreciated. Welcome to steemit. Grab your fishing pole!!! I say that because it is kind of like fishing. Write about things you like, put in some effort, but it is very difficult to predict what people will like. Some of my personal favorite posts were not well received, and then some I just wrote from the hip on a whim could prove to be popular. I stopped trying to predict, and I just write about whatever interests me on a given day.
Thanks again for your words... I've selected to follow you as I'd be interested in seeing what you do. :)
I've spoken about some of these things before. I think I reach different people each time iterate. I also learn from others during each iteration. The trick is how to simplify the idea such that people will listen. Each iteration hopefully is a seed of thought for different people. Each comment of theirs is hopefully a seed of new thought in my mind as well.
Also... yes you get three responses. This is perhaps one of the best compliments I believe I can receive. That my post was the first steemit post you have read, and you enjoyed it or found it worthy of your time. It doesn't get better than that. I hope you stick around. We have a lot of great people here and a lot of deep thinking.
Damn, this is surely the warmest welcome I've had in my web travels, thanks! And for the advice also, I'm still wrapping my head around this place... It seems to have real potential, I guess it's up to us to fulfill it :) Hopefully, with the aid of your encouragement, I'll be posting my first entry tonight.
(You're officially my first follower and first followed hehe)
Check out the introducemyself tag. You likely will want to do one of those. There are more current tutorials made by people, but I don't have any... I did make some a couple of months ago that might help: (other than the tag is now introducemyself)
https://steemit.com/steemithelp/@dwinblood/steemit-user-manual-for-new-people-hope-this-helps-sept-3rd-2016
https://steemit.com/steemithelp/@dwinblood/steemit-user-manual-journeyman-s-guide-some-additional-tips-to-posting-and-using-steemit-beyond-the-basics
There can be some hostility here but it is WAY LESS than any other site I am aware of. The monetary incentive seems to help quite a bit with keeping people civil. Those topics you've normally avoided talking about due to expecting to get ATTACKED you might actually be able to pull off here.
Oh and this place is still in BETA. Keep that in mind. So it is subject to change, possibly with your input.
Important topic. Glad you brought up such controversial issues that most of us tend to think of in terms of "right or wrong".
I included your piece in today’s #philosophy-review. Hoping to bring you more readers and discussion!
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@aaanderson/the-philosophy-review-12-8-2016
Thank you.... constant journey of the mind and an attempt to never stop learning. :)