Editing False dilemma

{{short description|Informal fallacy involving falsely limited alternatives}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2024}}
[[Image:Young America's dilemma - Dalrymple. LCCN2010651418.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Young America's dilemma: Shall I be wise and great, or rich and powerful? (''[[Puck (magazine)|Puck]]'' 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 [[disjunction|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.

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 reasoning|deductive arguments]], but they can also occur as [[defeasible reasoning|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.<ref name="Tomić"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Dowden |first1=Bradley |title=Fallacies: 6. Partial List of Fallacies |url=https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#FalseDilemma |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=3 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190603000334/https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#FalseDilemma |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Vleet"/> 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 (logic)|unsound]], i.e. not both valid and true. Fallacies are usually divided into ''formal'' and ''informal'' fallacies. [[Formal fallacy|Formal fallacies]] are unsound because of their structure, while informal fallacies are unsound because of their content.<ref name="Vleet">{{cite book |last1=Vleet |first1=Van Jacob E. |title=Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide |date=2010 |publisher=Upa |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/VLEILF |chapter=Introduction |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=28 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220228035654/https://philpapers.org/rec/VLEILF |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Hansen |first1=Hans |title=Fallacies |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=13 March 2021 |date=2020 |archive-date=29 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210329182946/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Tomić"/><ref name="Engel">{{cite book |last1=Engel |first1=S. Morris |title=With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies |date=1982 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/ENGWGR |chapter=4. Fallacies of presumption |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=1 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220301065815/https://philpapers.org/rec/ENGWGR |url-status=live }}</ref> The problematic content in the case of the ''false dilemma'' has the form of a [[disjunction|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.<ref name="Tomić">{{cite journal |last1=Tomić |first1=Taeda |title=False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition |journal=Argumentation |date=2013 |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=347–368 |doi=10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0 |s2cid=144781912 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/TOMFDA |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=10 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114245/https://philpapers.org/rec/TOMFDA |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Tomić"/>
	
== Types ==
=== Disjunction with contraries ===
In its most common form, a ''false dilemma'' presents the alternatives as [[contradictories]], while in truth they are merely [[contraries]].<ref name="Engel"/><ref name="fallacyfiles"/> 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 leaves open the option that both of them might be false, which is not possible in the case of contradictories.<ref name="Engel"/> Contradictories follow the [[law of the excluded middle]] but contraries do not.<ref name="fallacyfiles"/> 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. 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.<ref name="Engel"/> While ''false dilemmas'' involving contraries, i.e. [[Exclusive or#Exclusive or in natural language|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.<ref name="Tomić"/> For example, a choice between security and freedom does not involve contraries since these two terms are compatible with each other.<ref name="Engel"/>

=== 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:<ref name="Honderich">{{cite book |last1=Honderich |first1=Ted |title=The Oxford Companion to Philosophy |date=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/HONTOC-2 |chapter=Dilemmas |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=29 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210129082636/https://philpapers.org/rec/HONTOC-2 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="fallacyfiles"/><ref name="Tomić"/>
* simple constructive: <math>\frac{(P \to Q), (R \to Q), (P \lor R)}{\therefore Q}</math>
* simple destructive: <math>\frac{(P \to Q), (P \to R), (\lnot Q \lor \lnot R)}{\therefore \lnot P}</math>
The source of the fallacy is found in the disjunctive claim in the third premise, i.e. <math>P \lor R</math> and <math>\lnot Q \lor \lnot R</math> 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)".<ref name="Tomić"/> 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]]:<ref name="fallacyfiles">{{cite web |title=The Black-or-White Fallacy |url=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html |website=www.fallacyfiles.org |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=6 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206222117/http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
* disjunctive [[syllogism]]: <math>\frac{(P \lor Q), (\lnot P)}{\therefore Q}</math>
In this form, the first premise (<math>P \lor Q</math>) 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".<ref name="Vleet"/> 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.<ref name="Vleet"/>

=== Deductive and defeasible arguments ===
False dilemmas are usually discussed in terms of [[deductive reasoning|deductive arguments]]. But they can also occur as [[defeasible reasoning|defeasible arguments]].<ref name="Tomić"/> 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.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Koons |first1=Robert |title=Defeasible Reasoning |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=13 March 2021 |date=2017 |archive-date=15 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315044949/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/ |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Tomić"/>

== 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Walton |first1=Douglas N. |title=Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms |date=1987 |publisher=John Benjamins |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WALIFT |chapter=3. The logic of propositions |access-date=13 March 2021 |archive-date=2 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220302001111/https://philpapers.org/rec/WALIFT |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Tomić"/> 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.<ref name="Engel"/> 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.<ref name="Tomić"/>

== Relation to distinctions and vagueness ==
Some [[philosopher]]s and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction".<ref>[[Jacques Derrida]] (1991) ''Afterword: Toward An Ethic of Discussion'', published in the English translation of ''[[Limited Inc.]]'', pp. 123–24, 126</ref> 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."<ref name="Searle83">{{Cite web |last=Vermeule |first=Emily |date=1992-03-26 |title=The World Turned Upside Down |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1992/03/26/the-world-turned-upside-down/ |access-date=2024-10-21 |website=The New York Review of Books |language=en}}</ref> 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 events|mutually exclusive]], even though they need not be.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Baronett|first1=Stan|title=Logic|date=2008|publisher=Pearson Prentice Hall|location=Upper Saddle River, N.J.|isbn=9780131933125|page=101|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5ZfjSDw4eq4C&pg=PT101|access-date=31 October 2015}}{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being [[collectively exhaustive events|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]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Arfi|first1=Badredine|title=Linguistic fuzzy logic methods in social sciences|date=2010|publisher=Springer|location=Berlin, Germany|isbn=9783642133428|edition=1.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rlq8QMy7uTMC&pg=PA63|access-date=31 October 2015}}</ref>
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.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Desantis, Nick|title=Data Shows Bars With Most Noise Complaints, But Is It Just Sound and Fury?|url=http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/noise-complaints/|access-date=31 October 2015|work=The New York Times|date=23 January 2012|archive-date=4 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804222527/http://eastvillage.thelocal.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/noise-complaints/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Black-and-white thinking===
{{See also|Splitting (psychology)|Binary opposition}}

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=A. James Giannini |first=M. D. |date=2001-07-01 |title=Use of Fiction in Therapy |url=https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/use-fiction-therapy |journal=Psychiatric Times |language=en |volume=18 |issue=7 |pages=56–57}}</ref>

==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 {{slink|Formal fallacy|Denying a conjunct}})
* ''[[Double bind]]''
* ''Either/or fallacy''
* ''Fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses''
* ''Fallacy of the excluded middle''
* ''Fallacy of the false alternative''<ref>{{cite journal|last=Davies|first=W. Martin|url=https://philpapers.org/archive/DAVAQA-2.pdf|title=An 'infusion' approach to critical thinking: Moore on the critical thinking debate|date=May 2006|journal=Higher Education Research & Development|doi=10.1080/07294360600610420|volume=25|number=2|pages=179–193|s2cid=144167015|access-date=23 July 2019|archive-date=26 May 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230526184925/https://philpapers.org/archive/DAVAQA-2.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
* ''False binary''
* ''False choice''
* ''False dichotomy''
* ''Invalid disjunction''
* ''No middle ground''

==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}

{{div col|colwidth=15em}}
* [[Bivalence]]
* [[Choice architecture]]
* [[Degrees of truth]]
* [[Dichotomy]]
* [[Distinction without a difference]]
* [[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]]
* [[Morton's fork]]
* [[Mutually exclusive]]
* [[Nolan Chart]]
* [[Nonduality (spirituality)|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)]]
* {{slink|Strange loop|In cognitive science}}
* [[Straw man]]
* [[Thinking outside the box]]
* [[Unreasonable]]
* [[You're either with us, or against us]]
* [[Zero-sum thinking]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wiktionary|false dilemma|false dichotomy}}

* [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html The Black-or-White Fallacy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206222117/http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html |date=6 December 2020 }} entry in ''The Fallacy Files''

{{Fallacies}}
{{Propaganda}}
{{Misinformation}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:False Dilemma}}
[[Category:Barriers to critical thinking]]
[[Category:Deception]]
[[Category:Dilemmas]]
[[Category:Error]]
[[Category:Ignorance]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]

[[sv:Dikotomi#Falsk dikotomi]]