Bifurcation

Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ]

Previous topic | Next topic

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

20 May 2011, 11:01 am

The logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Wikipedia wrote:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception (e.g., "I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")

It is often encountered in discussions and debates about religion. In a blog on Buddhism, titled The God Question: Neither Yes Nor No (link):

Quote:

There's a flip side side to this issue -- I recently encountered some self-identified atheists who demanded to know if Buddhism was atheistic or theistic. I explained that western ideas about theism don't exactly apply to Buddhism, and classifying Buddhism as either theistic or atheistic could be a hindrance to understanding it.

But the atheists weren't having it. They insisted I was evading the question. It had to be one or the other!

So my question to you is this: Is there another answer to the question? Are we either atheists, or theists? Or is there a grey area, in the middle? Can we be sympathetic to both impulses?

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

20 May 2011, 1:18 pm

For theism versus atheism [with agnosticism], as properly understood in standard English discourse, a four compartment two by two feature matrix suffices: + / - divinity crossing + / - convinced.

Problems arise from the popular confusion between theist [not necessarily but probably religious] with religious [not necessarily put probably theist] which leaves many Buddhists as noted in a grey area;

from the fact that there is a continuum [number of spirits / deities approaching infinity > 0] - note that spirits may be very negative but you cannot use negative values counting spirits;

AND of course a continuous scale for level of certainty.

This is before you factor in level of promotion of theism, atheist, or whatever [do we dare assume there is nobody actively promoting adnosticism? It seems to me improbable], level of involvenent of deities and / or religious organizations and / or religion-derived values in daily life, style of worship, level of group identification.

But for simply atheism / theism (agnosticism), the 2x2 matrix is a nice fit, we just need to educate people to stop confusing religion and theism [in extreme cases, religion and Christisnity].

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

20 May 2011, 9:40 pm

dionysian wrote:

...

Quote:

... I recently encountered some self-identified atheists who demanded to know if Buddhism was atheistic or theistic. I explained ... classifying Buddhism as either theistic or atheistic could be a hindrance to understanding it.

... They insisted I was evading the question. It had to be one or the other!

So my question to you is this: Is there another answer to the question? Are we either atheists, or theists? Or is there a grey area, in the middle?

Within Scripture, there is mention of "hold or cold" ... and then there is also "tepid" (to (ultimately) be spewn like vomit).

dionysian wrote:

Can we be sympathetic to both impulses?

Only if we wish to be spewn!

As a point of personal, experiential reference here:

Quote:

Alcoholics Anonymous is not a religious organization ...
... By personal religious affiliation, we include Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and a sprinkling of Moslems and Buddhists.

(Foreword To Second Edition, 1955 (I think))

Within today's AA, the "grey area, in the middle" you have mentioned seems most-common ... so yes, such a place does exist.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

20 May 2011, 11:32 pm

Did you just claim that two by-definition mutually exclusive options are a false dichotomy?

_________________
.

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

20 May 2011, 11:36 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Did you just claim that two by-definition mutually exclusive options are a false dichotomy?

Yes? You can have an infinite number of mutually exclusive options. The false dichotomy arises when you say something like "The car isn't red, therefore it is blue." When, in fact, the car could be yellow. It being red, blue or yellow are all mutually exclusive options. The fallacy is saying it must be one of those two, when there are other possibilities.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

20 May 2011, 11:36 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Did you just claim that two by-definition mutually exclusive options are a false dichotomy?

Yes. This is due to a several-hour long discussion I attempted to have about what words mean.

It was the biggest fustercluck I think I've ever been in.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

20 May 2011, 11:43 pm

dionysian wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Did you just claim that two by-definition mutually exclusive options are a false dichotomy?

Fallacy of the False Analogy:

Presenting a Hypothetical where the variable in question could have a near-infinite number of values,
when the proposition calls for one in which there are two, mutually-exclusive values-
the presence versus lack thereof of a belief, in this case.

a true dichotomy.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

20 May 2011, 11:46 pm

Philologos wrote:

Problems arise from the popular confusion between theist [not necessarily but probably religious] with religious [not necessarily put probably theist] which leaves many Buddhists as noted in a grey area;

I really can't be compelled to give two sh!ts about "popular confusion"- if people want to educate themselves so that they might use language more correctly, that's their job.

dionysian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
Location: Germantown, MD

20 May 2011, 11:53 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

dionysian wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Did you just claim that two by-definition mutually exclusive options are a false dichotomy?

You are acting as though there is a single proposition, which we can either believe in or not. In fact, there is an abundance of diverse notions. It's not all or nothing.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

20 May 2011, 11:59 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Philologos wrote:

I really can't be compelled to give two sh!ts about "popular confusion"- if people want to educate themselves so that they might use language more correctly, that's their job.

If people want to nominate themselves for my list, that is their privilege. If I talk, I will talk English or some other language. Have a nice day.

I have NO interest in compelling or persuading or asking you to do anything.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 May 2011, 1:05 am

No, not a false dichotomy. While a middle position MIGHT be possible based upon the question somehow being poorly defined. (Igtheism, transtheism, etc) Most of these efforts are just pretty questionable and thus the dichotomy remains.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

21 May 2011, 1:07 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

I was going to answer that way, then I started to wrap my mind around "what if the said person doesn't have really internally stable/consistent beliefs"? In which case, it becomes very tricky to evaluate "what" they think.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 May 2011, 1:13 am

Master_Pedant wrote:

I can see that.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 21 May 2011, 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

21 May 2011, 1:15 am

dionysian wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

dionysian wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Did you just claim that two by-definition mutually exclusive options are a false dichotomy?

You are acting as though there is a single proposition, which we can either believe in or not. In fact, there is an abundance of diverse notions. It's not all or nothing.

That "abundance of diverse notions" involving a belief or the absence of it.

Keep chanting that the presence or non-presence of a belief involves more than one variable by definition-
it worked really well for you the first ten times, didn't it?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

21 May 2011, 3:25 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Keep chanting that the presence or non-presence of a belief involves more than one variable by definition-
it worked really well for you the first ten times, didn't it?

Oh pooh! One cannot prove induction works by induction.

ruveyn

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

21 May 2011, 3:30 am

ruveyn wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Keep chanting that the presence or non-presence of a belief involves more than one variable by definition-
it worked really well for you the first ten times, didn't it?

Oh pooh! One cannot prove induction works by induction.

ruveyn

Haha!

Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ]

Jump to:

Bifurcation Post Reply New Topic

Bifurcation