Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The False Dichotomy Fallacy: Not the Same Thing as the False Dilemma Fallacy
While teaching my first logic class (as a grad student, Baylor University, Fall of 2008), I made a rookie mistake. A student asked me if the false dilemma fallacy was the same thing as the false dichotomy fallacy. I said yes.
I know, I know–it seems cringey and facepalmy now.
What’s that–you weren’t thinking that was cringey and facepalmy?
Well, I guess it’s time for a lesson in logic. Let’s start with a few observations:
–There is no such thing as an official or perfect list of informal fallacies.
–There is no such thing as an official or perfect system for categorizing informal fallacies.
–There is no such thing as an official or perfect list of names for the informal fallacies.
But here’s what we do have:
–A good definition of what an informal fallacy actually is (and there’s one available here at my earlier post);
–a number of argument patterns that are often used in informal fallacies;
–various resemblances among some of the patterns that make it possible to categorize them;
–a few very well-established names for some of the patterns (ad hominem, ad populum, etc.);
–some other names that are somewhat less well-established;
–and a lot of different logic and critical thinking textbooks, each of which has its own particular approach to informal fallacies.
The textbooks vary in these ways:
–they have different lists of the patterns (the longer the list, the more arguments you can apply it to, but the harder it is to remember everything!);
–they have different systems for categorizing the patterns;
–and they do not use exactly the same names for the patterns.
For all things logic, I recommend The Power of Logic by Lehman, Wasserman, and the Howard-Snyders as a good standard logic textbook and also, I deem, better than the other standard ones I’ve worked with (Introduction to Logic by Copi and A Concise Introduction to Logic by Hurley).
But here I am in Hong Kong, my job at HKBU involves teaching a lot of ethics courses, I haven’t taught logic since my last job in Pakistan, and all my logic textbook copies are in a box in a storage unit south of Houston!
And you know what? I don’t even care. And I’ve already told you why I don’t care: We’re not talking about a problem that has an official or perfect solution.
But if you didn’t think my rookie mistake was actually cringey and facepalmy, then I can give you a better solution, and here it is:
There are two different patterns often used in informal fallacies that involve an either-or statement. One is called the “false dilemma” pattern, and the other is (or should be) called the “false dichotomy” pattern.
Let’s look at the patterns, using temporary names that won’t lead us astray.
Fallacies Using the FRODO Pattern
1. You must disapprove of Trump’s behavior, or disapprove of Biden’s behavior. Make up your mind!
2. We must either approve of masks or of chloroquine, and masks are good. So chloroquine can go to heck!
3. We have to drill more, or do more green energy; the time to decide which one is now!
4. We have to cut spending or else grow the economy to fight the national debt. It’s easy to grow the economy, so let’s just ignore the spending.
Fallacies Using the SAM Pattern
1. Your only options are to vote for Hillary or for Trump. Hillary is bad. Therefore, your only option is to vote for Trump.
2. You can be a patsy, or a jerk. It’s wrong to be a jerk. So be a patsy! Or: You can be a patsy, or a jerk. It’s wrong to be a patsy. So be a jerk! (An argument rightly criticized in Henry R’s thread here.)
3. Either you approve of sacrificing the economy to fight coronavirus, or else you are in favor of doing nothing!
4. Are you going to be a Christian, or are you going to be a nihilistic atheist?
You see what’s wrong with the Frodos, don’t you? Those “Why not both?” memes were literally made to respond to arguments like this! (See also Iron Man, below.) All the Frodo arguments are telling us we have to choose between two options when we could well choose both.
Something different is wrong with the Sam arguments. Their fallacy is giving us only two choices when there are other options available. (See Dilbert’s mom, below.)
Those are not the same mistake. The Frodo arguments are asking us to choose between only one of two options when we can actually have both; the Sam arguments are asking us to choose one of two options when we can actually reject both.
(Of course, the same argument can have both mistakes: You must like Star Wars or else Star Trek. Star Trek is great, and therefore you should hate Star Wars!)
So which mistake is used in “false dichotomy” fallacies, and which one is used in “false dilemma” fallacies? Well, the Frodo arguments are improperly separating things that could go together. And the Sam arguments are improperly limiting us to only two choices when other choices are available.
So let’s review the relevant terms:
–a dichotomy is a cutting or a dividing in two (see Dictionary.com here);
–and a dilemma is, traditionally, a set of two options or of two propositions (go to Dictionary.com here and scroll down to the part about “Historical Usage”).
So which arguments improperly cut or divide two options? Those would be the Frodo arguments. So a good name for the Frodo arguments is “false dichotomy fallacies.” And which arguments give us an improper set of two options? Those would be the Sam arguments. So a good name for the Sam arguments is “false dilemma fallacies.”
This is how you’re likely to find the term defined in any logic textbook that uses the term “false dilemma.” “False dilemma” has a pretty well-established meaning, unlike “false dichotomy.”
Unfortunately, the terms are sometimes used synonymously, like here in Wiktionary. This is not universal; for example, at the Dictionary.com definition of “dichotomy,” the third definition emphasizes the use of the term in logic as involving a strict separation, a mutual exclusivity–standard dichotomy stuff, not dilemma stuff.
Using them synonymously abandons the dictionary use of the word “dichotomy.”
Consider the claim You must support a future malaria vaccine, or at least support chloroquine. This sentence is not telling me that I cannot support both. But if you want to call it a fallacy on the grounds that it leaves out mosquito nets, be my guest. That would make it an inappropriate reduction of choices, an improper set of two options–a false dilemma.
But it doesn’t falsely separate the two options it presents. It’s not a chotomy of any kind, and so not a dichotomy. So I ask you, if you want to use “false dichotomy” and “false dilemma” synonymously:
Why would you want to label something an improper separation when it does not improperly separate?
You could just say something like, “Hey, bro, this is a dichotomy, but it should be a trichotomy!” Or you could just use the standard logic textbook term that makes sense etymologically: You can say, “This is a false dilemma fallacy.”
And then you can save the term “false dichotomy fallacy” for arguments that improperly separate two options. That’s the right way to use the word “dichotomy,” and it allows us to use these two fitting names to keep track of the distinction between two different kinds of bad argument.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
The logic textbook use is the original source of the popular use, and the textbooks’ goal is still the right one: to use succinct names that describe as clearly as possible the characteristics of arguments, occasionally sacrificing linguistic clarity for logic-teaching convention.
Describing Sam fallacies as inappropriate divisions when they are not does not achieve that goal.
You want to take on the apparently universal convention of logic teachers in using “false dilemma” to refer to Sam fallacies on the grounds that the English word “dilemma” has changed its meaning?
Be my guest.
Find the right name that doesn’t abandon the English meaning of “dichotomy,” and you may have my support. See comment # 21.
Ok, searching for ” “false dilemma” ” and ” “false dichotomy”,” I get about 0.3 million and 2.7 million results, respectively.
You are correct about that!
Those are Sam fallacies.
This definition implies division/cutting of choices even when there is none.
A ridiculous definition, abandoning the bi prefix with its “(many)” claim.Again, Sam fallacies.
This also implies division/cutting of choices even when there is none.
Frodo fallacies.
Sam fallacies.
Again, implies division/cutting of choices even when there is none.
Sam fallacies.
Implies division/cutting of choices even when there is none.
In other words, this source calls Sam fallacies “false dilemmas” (where we can actually reject both options) and calls Frodo fallacies “false dichotomies” (where we can actually accept both options). This source and I are in agreement. (So now you’ve seen two clear instances that define the terms in the way I recommend.)
And we can add this to the list of sources cited in # 11 that push against your usage. Plainly, there is no convention concerning what exactly “false dichotomy” means. And there’s not much clarity as to whether “false dilemma” applies to Frodo fallacies. The use of the term “false dilemma” to denote Sam fallacies appears to be universal.
This much is clear:
–Frodo fallacies and Sam fallacies are different;
–“false dilemma” is a term with a well-established use in the teaching of logic, and it is used to denote Sam fallacies;
–“false dichotomy” is not a term with a well-established conventional definition in logic;
–and the dictionary word “dichotomy” is abandoned if we use “false dichotomy” to refer to Sam fallacies.
Gosh, I’m late to this party. I hope there’s still some juice in the punchbowl and the band is still playing. Last time, I think I was dancing the Madison while everyone else was doing the Stroll. I’ll try to keep in step this time. Let’s see. Ah, there are my old friends Tom and Al. I’ll eavesdrop.
TOM: I propose that there are some people who believe that they must be either patsies or jerks. I will argue that this not need be the case by offering there is a third …
AL: Wait just a minute! I happen to know that that’s not true. In fact, I know for a certainty that @StAugustine, @HenryRacette, and @MarkCamp are not patsies. Plus, St. Augustine has hundreds of students and colleagues who will vouch for his kindness; Henry Racette has never uttered an unkind word; and Mark Camp is a gentleman in all things. None fit into the groups you cite. So your proposition is flawed right from the start. Maybe you should call it a trichotomy.
TOM: Not so. In fact, Al, you are making my case for me. I insist that being a patsy or a jerk is not a necessary way in the world. There is indeed a third group that comprises pleasant people—or at least people who are neither patsies nor jerks. I am speaking of a well-defined (by me) group of Some People Believe patsiness and jerkness are mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets. It follows then, that such people believe they must decide on one or the other. I intend to show them they need not be bound by such belief.
AL: So in other words, the formulation you begin with is flawed. There are choices of behavior that are neither patsies or jerks.
TOM: Not quite. I am confident my formulation is sound. You are correct about the existence of another sub-class. And I intend to introduce it to reveal that any premise that one may only be a patsy or a jerk permits both to be simultaneously false. The major class in my premise is Some People Believe. The two subclasses are Patsies and Jerks. I intend to address the group Some People Believe and show that their belief system is based on a false dichotomy, i.e., a world that requires either being a patsy or being a jerk. If one allows that the division of the world permits a conclusion that both outcomes can be false (by showing the sub-classes are non-exhaustive), I can demonstrate a false dichotomy. My argument takes the form:
1 Dichotomy Either Patsy or Jerk
2 Premise Not Jerk
3 Therefore Patsy
Alternately:
1 Dichotomy Either Patsy or Jerk
2 Premise Not Patsy
3 Therefore Jerk
Add to 1 that both may be false (by introducing non-exclusivity), and you recognize that the conclusion Patsy may still be false, and the conclusion Jerk may still be false with both arguments. This takes the form:
1 Premise Patsy or Jerk (both may be false)
2 Premise Not Jerk
3 Therefore Patsy or Not Patsy
Altnernately:
1 Dichotomy Patsy or Jerk (both may be false)
2 Premise Not Patsy
3 Therefore Jerk or Not Jerk
By adding the possibility of dual falseness, you have constructed a False Dichotomy. And, you have demonstrated that there must be something else in the world besides being a patsy or a jerk.
AL: But what if someone doesn’t believe the stipulation that there are nice people in the world?
TOM: Then they will continue to believe life is restricted to being a Patsy or a Jerk.
AL: What about dilemmas?
TOM: I understand a dilemma to be a choice between two unfavorable options. I don’t know if mutual adversity is a necessary condition, but I’ve only seen dilemma used with that condition. As far as my argument, I think I’ve satisfactorily constructed a False Dichotomy. … Now, where’s the punchbowl? … Oh, there’s that Caltory guy. Be careful with him. He may not be a patsy, but he’s kind of a jerk.
I don’t think anyone was disputing that.
(Well, maybe. Back on the earlier thread, maybe someone was talking about that in all the discussions I didn’t have time to keep track of.)
I’m pretty sure he’s neither. He’s welcome around here.
No. I want to communicate a point to normal readers by using the language that most people already understand. The “apparently universal convention of logic teachers,” decent men all, doesn’t interest me — except as an excuse for protracted debates about language on Ricochet, which are fun. My goal is to communicate an idea to normal people, not explain why logic professors, whom we admire, don’t use words like the rest of us do.
What you did back in comment #33 is explain why, when normal people go look up the phrase “false dichotomy,” they’re going to get something with which logic professors, good and honorable men to the last, might take issue. What matters to me is that they’ll get the common definition of the term I used, and so understand what I was trying to convey. Then they’ll be happy and edified, and go about their day aglow with the joy of modest enlightenment.
And only the logic professors, peace be unto them, will be glum.
Snort.
If I wrote only for logic professors, I wouldn’t be interested in popular definitions either.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! We are not all decent men!
Whoa, whoa, whoa! That’s even worse! We are not all good and honorable men to the last!
I don’t get it.
You are fond of citing logic/CT textbooks yourself to justify your terminology. So why not do it right?
Every single use by ordinary people is piggybacking off of terminology derived from logic class; they’re all trying to properly use the same terms. So why not do it right?
Ordinary language should not abandon the dictionary. Your use of the term does abandon the dictionary definition of “dichotomy.”
Sorry. Stupid mistake on my part.
(It looks like the definition still errs in insisting on many other options, which would mean that the terms do not apply whenever there is in fact only one other option.)
It does not, however, abandon the dictionary definition of “false dichotomy,” nor the popularly accepted meaning. And that’s the point.
HR, from what I can tell, you think there is a well-established popular use of the term “false dichotomy” to refer to Sam fallacies.
And it looks like you think it’s so well-established that the fact that it regularly requires abandoning the meaning of the word “dichotomy” doesn’t even matter; the phrase “false dichotomy,” in effect, has its own technical dictionary sense that’s moved past its etymology.
And it looks like you think that the ordinary people who use the term “false dichotomy” fallacy don’t actually care whether they agree with the logic textbooks.
But here’s what I think:
–ordinary people who name informal fallacies are all thinking that logic teachers get it more or less right, and they’re trying to use the same terms;
–sometimes they get confused (like I and my student did) by the similarity of the terms “false dilemma” and “false dichotomy” and/or by the subtle similarities and differences between Frodo and Sam fallacies;
–and they’re also drawing from a working understanding of the constituent English terms.
Well, these things are hard to get just right, which is one reason that (as noted early on in the opening post) there are some patterns with well-established names (Sam fallacies always being labeled “false dilemma”) and some without (like Frodo fallacies).
I think my way is better.
Insofar as people want to use logic class terms properly, they can draw from the universality of using “false dilemma” to refer to Sam fallacies and from the more careful logic teachers (like me and your LogicallyFallacious.com citation) on “false dichotomy.”
Insofar as people want to use English words properly, they can stick with the correct English word “dichotomy.” And they can avoid confusing anyone who naturally thinks that “false dichotomy” means what it literally means–a false separation of two choices.
(Should we do something about the shift in the word “dilemma”? Sure, why not? If we can. Addressed in # 21.)
I wouldn’t read too closely into that definition, as it comes from something called TVtropes. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the parentheses are intended to indicate something optional; I have little faith in their grammatical rigor.
So why cite that? Because I think it’s a pretty good illustrator of the kind of common understanding of the term that people have, and of the kind of sources people will consult when they don’t have that understanding.
I’m going to ask this in all seriousness because I’m curious. No disrespect intended, and it is not intended to be in any way mocking. (How about that for a build up? ;) )
Do you have a lot of interaction, a lot of time spent, with relatively normal people? How rarefied is the atmosphere in which you travel?
I think it would be wonderful to live a life of mind, of precision in the realm of abstraction. I used to believe that that was what I would do when I grew up, be some kind of public intellectual, spend my life in books and talking about books. But I proved ill-suited for it as a young man, and the rest of my life followed from that.
I spend my time talking with relatively normal people. I work with engineers, very bright people but not people generally interested in or particularly gifted at writing or abstract conversation. I envy them their facility with electronics and machinery, the lifetime of knowledge they have. My ability to communicate clearly and understand requirements from very different kinds of customers, and my ability to tell computers what to do in an effective manner, is valuable to them. It works out well and I enjoy my work.
I would not thrive in academia. But it sounds like a wonderful place.
But I shall be fairly pleased if you take just this much away from this conversation:
–Frodo and Sam fallacies are not the same,
–and some philosophy teacher nerd in Hong Kong thinks we should use different names for them.
I shall be more pleased if this much also is taken away:
–using “false dichotomy” to refer to Sam fallacies has the odd result of (literally) labeling as a false division of choices some fallacies that do not falsely divide the choices, or do not divide the choices at all;
–and, whether or not you give so much as a rat’s hemorrhoid for logic textbook terminology, they pretty much universally label Sam fallacies as “false dilemmas.”
At some point, of course, usage will win out. This is something I also have a hard time accepting. For example, the phrase “begging the question” is now used almost universally, including by very competent speakers, as an alternative to “inviting the question.”
In fact, it was that phrase that earned me my first usage correction on Ricochet, for which I’m grateful. But I hear the misuse every week or two, and fear that it will eventually lose its meaning.
Your correction of my use of “false dichotomy” is the second usage correction I’ve received on Ricochet. In this case, I think you’re mistaken, because I think the ship long ago sailed on whatever meaning you believe the phrase should have had, and it is now widely accepted as meaning what I think it means.
I don’t know what Sam and Frodo would think about that.
I take it as evidence that people have no understanding of the term which is both clear and common. The abundant sources in #s 11 and 33 are very good evidence for that. (There’s a dictionary definition in # 11, too.)
Even your own sources without exception apply the term “false dilemma” to Sam fallacies. Have you not noticed that yet? There’s nothing like that kind of clarity in the use of “false dichotomy.”
Beats me. What counts as normal?
I do spend very little time with academic types outside of meetings. The people in my Dept. are all pretty level-headed. I’m often lost among other academics with their jargon and their leftist priorities. I think I spend more time with people at church than with academics.
People at Baptist churches are to academics as Farmer Maggot to Saruman.
If I lose track of ordinary language sometimes, it’s not because I don’t spend time with ordinary people. It’s because my personality is heavily weighted in favor of understanding language and logic–and against understanding anything else about conversational implicature, tone of voice, conversational imprecision, etc., etc.
It’s this stuff.
Yes. [Grumble, grumble.]
And yet your own citations join mine from # 11 in showing that one critical thinking textbook lacks my precise use of terms, that LogicallyFallacious.com has it, that there is no clarity in the use of the term “false dichotomy,” and that there is universal agreement in popular language as well as logic textbooks that “false dilemma” refers to Sam fallacies.
I’m going to be frank and tell you that I’ve long since forgotten what you mean by “Sam” and “Frodo” in this discussion, and don’t want to bother looking it up.
It is my belief, based on life and all those internet definitions, that most people think “false dichotomy” means “conveying the mistaken idea that there are only two choices, when there are in fact more than two.”
Perhaps we should do a poll of normal people we encounter day-to-day and see if that’s correct. We can ask them, at the same time, what “false dilemma” means. I don’t know what they’ll say, but I’ll bet you a nickel that those who think about it will say something like “it’s when you say that two choices are both bad, but at least one of them isn’t,” or something like that.
We should find out.
Did you write that with a straight face?
Did you really mean to suggest that ordinary, normal people, would ever use a phrase without regard to what the logic textbooks have to say about it?
I… I don’t know what to say.
Sam fallacies.
That’s not any fallacy I’ve ever heard of.
I think we already did. There’ve been enough citations.
At this point we can just observe the spectacular clarity in the use of the term “false dilemma” (in your sources too–every one that used the term!) to refer to Sam fallacies, observe (as abundantly documented in #s 11 and 33, above) the spectacular lack of clarity in how the term “false dilemma” is used, and then start using our terms clearly with attention to both logic-class convention and the dictionary.
Of course.
What are you talking about?
I was describing your views to the best of my ability. If you’re going to ask what I think, why not quote the part where I tell you?
HR, I’m pretty sure you think people use “false dichotomy” as a technical term for the fallacy of improperly giving us too few choices, without caring about the fact that it abandons the dictionary sense of “dichotomy.”
Where do you think they got the technical term from? Do you think they think the technical term just appeared one day?
Some folks have way too much time on their hands.
Die, coronavirus, die!!!
So far I’ve needed four Panadol pills, and I’m thinking I’ll need two more soon.
It’s not like flu or malaria, but it ain’t fun. The second dose side-effects are all too real. Well, for me. Better luck to the rest of you who try Pfizer!
One Christmas I was given a bicycle, but when I unwrapped it, it was a tricycle. I said, ” That’s a false bicycle!” And I was told, “That’s not a false bicycle, it’s not a false anything: it’s a tricycle.”
The next Christmas I was given a bicycle with training wheels, and I said, “That’s a false bicycle!” And I was told, “No, it’s still a bicycle irrespective of the extraneous other wheels.”
I finally got it: there cannot be a false anything because it is what it is; and even if it is not by definition what it is called, it still is what it is called.
Wait, what?
I believe it was put forward early on that a false dichotomy cannot be false if it is in fact a dichotomy: and especially if it is not any kind of a dichotomy, but is a trichotomy. But maybe I misremembered.
And I believe HR argued that regardless of the exact definitions of the words used to describe a thing, a thing still is what it is called.
You mean you paid attention to what these jaspers was sayin’?
Bah! Those HR people! Brings back memories. There was this one HR director I knew who quit taking his medication. Boy howdy, that was fun.
Corbin, welcome! Good to have you with us.
I kept half an eye open. But yes.
And it took me a couple of pages to figure out that HR didn’t mean what I thought it meant.