PygmyPlaidGiraffe
25th June 2003, 08:17 AM
Either or
Fallacy of negation
False dilemma
Discrediting one position so the observer is forced to accept the other.
I keep hearing and reading (a proponderance from my perspective) of this type of arguement/rhetoric over and over in the media, in conversations with people, and occassionally on the JREF forums.
I may even be guilty of using it myself from time to time
examples
Either you are for war or you are anti-war. (or, vice versa if you wish for this one will depend on a person's position)
Either you are with America or you are against America.
Either you want [insert tyranical despot/regime here] deposed, or want [insert tyranical despot/regime here] to remain in power.
Life was either divinely created or evolved.
Either you support Amercica and its allies on the war against terrorism or you support the terrorists.
Either you support [insert my desired position] or you:
a) shut up
b) are an idiot/woo-woo
c) are not a true skeptic or are of poor moral character
d) need to move to Cuba/Iraq/Planet 'X'
e) all of the above
Occassionally I present this type of argument and spend most of my focus on discrediting the "flip side" so I can argue that the "flip side" is wrong. The flip side is wrong, therefore my position is correct.
For example,
A creationist's argument may be" Life was either divinely created or evolved."
Creationists focus on discrediting the theory of evolution, so they can argue that evolution is wrong, and since the theory of evolution is wrong creationism must be right. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Is it enough for me to point out the weaknesses of a position I do not agree with?
No, and this is something I have to work on.
Not only must I provide evidence against the opposition, I need to consider all data and sources of information available, to provide:
1) evidence for my position
2) evidence against my position (tough to do as I can become emotionally invested in my position)
3) evidence for my oppostion
4) evidence against my opposition
I apologise if this is looking like plagarism, I have been reading Shermer et al and specifically "A field Guide to Critical Thinking" - James Lett
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Fallacy of negation
False dilemma
Discrediting one position so the observer is forced to accept the other.
I keep hearing and reading (a proponderance from my perspective) of this type of arguement/rhetoric over and over in the media, in conversations with people, and occassionally on the JREF forums.
I may even be guilty of using it myself from time to time
examples
Either you are for war or you are anti-war. (or, vice versa if you wish for this one will depend on a person's position)
Either you are with America or you are against America.
Either you want [insert tyranical despot/regime here] deposed, or want [insert tyranical despot/regime here] to remain in power.
Life was either divinely created or evolved.
Either you support Amercica and its allies on the war against terrorism or you support the terrorists.
Either you support [insert my desired position] or you:
a) shut up
b) are an idiot/woo-woo
c) are not a true skeptic or are of poor moral character
d) need to move to Cuba/Iraq/Planet 'X'
e) all of the above
Occassionally I present this type of argument and spend most of my focus on discrediting the "flip side" so I can argue that the "flip side" is wrong. The flip side is wrong, therefore my position is correct.
For example,
A creationist's argument may be" Life was either divinely created or evolved."
Creationists focus on discrediting the theory of evolution, so they can argue that evolution is wrong, and since the theory of evolution is wrong creationism must be right. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Is it enough for me to point out the weaknesses of a position I do not agree with?
No, and this is something I have to work on.
Not only must I provide evidence against the opposition, I need to consider all data and sources of information available, to provide:
1) evidence for my position
2) evidence against my position (tough to do as I can become emotionally invested in my position)
3) evidence for my oppostion
4) evidence against my opposition
I apologise if this is looking like plagarism, I have been reading Shermer et al and specifically "A field Guide to Critical Thinking" - James Lett
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html