Talk:False dilemma

message: Would this episode, where George assumes that "if every instinct he has is wrong, then the opposite must be right" be an example of this fallacy?
:I think that's a Non sequitur --69.211.104.41 15:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that's my favorite Seinfeld episode.  Yes, that would be an example of a false dilemma, rather than a nonsequiter as stated above.  George falsely assumes that there are only two possible actions - the one his instincts tell him, and the opposite of that.  --BennyD 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Opposite" Episode of Seinfeld 

message: Hi all, this link is now on the anti-Mormon article as an example, the false dilemma title is not as effective as "either/or fallacy" in the context it often used in. For what it is worth, there is an either/or link already describing a book. Anon166 19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Either/or fallacy" is not a particularly common term in logic and critical thinking courses; this isn't the first time I've heard it, but it's close. "False dilemma" is definitely the more usual name, your opinion on their relative clarity (which, it must be admitted, I agree with) notwithstanding. PurplePlatypus 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Either/or fallacy" would successfully merge both articles

message: *For  both are used in the same way and have the same definitions. Somerset219 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of false choice into false dilemma 

message: I have added this example three times now. It has been reverted the first two times. The first time was because it was "politically charged" and the second time because of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. However, No Personal Attacks refers to editors, not subjects in the article. Secondly, no one is saying anything negative about the President. In the example, Colbert gives two choices: "Great President" or "Greatest President". By definition, there are countless more choices that should be made available. "Really good President," "So-so President," "Terrible President." No where in the example does it say anything negative about the President. It is simply a clear-cut example of False Dilemma and, in my opinion, a perfect example for this article since it is one that many people will recognize and help them understand the term. Please don't revert without discussing here. Stoneice02 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this example is that Colbert is a humorist.  On the other hand, the classic example of a false dilemma is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Rick Norwood 12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why on Earth should we not be able to include an example from a humorist?!?!?! ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.214.215 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert example 

message: The link for the first reference is dead. (Minton, James (2006-06-03). Video games seized from teen’s home. The Baton Rouge Advocate. Retrieved on 2006-06-05.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.112.5.246 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead References Link 

message: Ok. It's pretty funny that "shooting people in the face" links to Dick Cheney, but I'm still changing it.
StuIsCool 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shot in the face 

message: First, this is not the place to chat about global warming -- there are other web sites for that.
The false dilemma and black and white thinking are closely related.  In each case, they pose an "either A or B" choice, when in fact there are other alternatives. Rick Norwood 12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neglecting the baby, you're completely right.  We all know that good/evil isn't actually a formal dichotomy (well, not until St Peter sifts). In many cases with a false dichotomy, people really believe that the doors presented are the only doors available.  Black and white thinking has as much (or more) in common with archetypes than with dilemma. — MaxEnt 17:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The relationship between false dilemma and black and white thinking. 

message: Can it be said that monotheistic or Abrahamic religions can be reduced to a collection of false dichotomies? All they consist of is the "this or that" discourse. Le Anh-Huy 11:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monotheism?

message: In looking for examples, I chose one from a "liberal" blog and one from a "conservative" blog.  It turned out, of course, that to a conservative they were both too liberal and to a liberal they were both too conservative, which just goes to show that where right and left lie depend entirely on which way you're facing.
On the other hand, since most practical examples of false dilemmas that I see today are about politics, I'm not sure a ban on political examples is practical.  I'll try to come up with a couple that clearly represent both viewpoints, both the right viewpoint and the wrong viewpoint. Rick Norwood 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: Thank you, 90.241.29.99 . Rick Norwood 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling 

message: :I came for information regarding logic, not politics.  Please change the examples.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.173.192.26 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new comment 

message: "One field such a saying is frequently used is in evolutionary biology, although in the strictest sense it may not be considered to be a false dichotomy. In this case, the two sides referred to are evolution versus Biblical creation or Intelligent Design (ID). Some proponents of evolution point out that there are more than two sets of beliefs on the issue."
What about if the 2 (or more) sets overlap? (e.g. evolution was part of the technique used by the Intelligent Designer)
Does that still create/invalidate the false dilemma?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.229.58 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  both sides overlap 

message: Is this section vandalism? Or propaganda put in by a supporter of teaching intelligent design or creationism in public schools? Can we get a better example? Methychroma (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shortened this example and tried to keep it to the point.  If someone wanted to delete it, I would not object. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Schools should teach both sides" 

message: Under this section this sentence appears: "Of course the speaker does not believe..." Isn't this too assertive?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.73.242 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no alternative 

message: May I suggest to simply delete this article, as it fails to give a comprehensible account of the issue. Not only are the examples poor and not-at-all well-founded, the article in general is not particularly readable and makes you wonder what it's all about, and what's its relevance.
I'd simply delete it.
Bjørn Clasen (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. False dilemma is simply "~failure to choose 2 alternatives" (needs better words). I have no idea why there is so much blabber about somthing which is so dead simple ;) 84.16.123.194 (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe both of you overread that this is about a fallacy? I find examples as well as relevance and importance understandable, if not enlightening. @BjørnClasen: you're thoughts are so unspecific, what shall anyone say about them? @84.16.123.194, I find your thoughts superficial and I would ask whether you've actually read the article.--91.67.195.203 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion

message: a bar must be shut down for it to not cause 
disturbing levels of noise after midnight. 
This ignores the fact that the bar could simply 
lower its noise levels, and/or install more 
soundproof structural elements to keep the 
noise from excessively transmitting onto others' properties.
The problem in this case is probably not the bar itself,
since soundproofing is, though probably expensive, a fairly simple
technical solution for a fairly simple technical problem.
Where I come from people don't complain about the of noise of the 
bar, but about the noisy drunk people going home from bars, when they 
close somethimes between 1AM and 3AM.
Noisy people are a social problem and therefor not remedied by
technical solutions. Closing down the bar, would not hinder people 
roam about at night.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.106.33 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False choice -> Incomplete example of NY Bars 

message: Is this really a false dichotomy? If a person doesn't have liquid assets, s/he isn't rich.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.118.20 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point. Morton's two options are people who appear wealthy (who thus must have plenty of money and should be taxed) and people who appear poor (who thus must just be saving their money and should be taxed). By ignoring the possibilities that people who appear wealthy might be hiding financial problems and people who appear poor actually are poor, Morton created a false dichotomy to justify his taxation. Milhisfan (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moreton's Fork 

message: The "See also" section links to Nolan chart, but I am not sure why: this article does not otherwise mention the Nolan chart, and that article does not mention false dilemmas.  Presumably, the chart has one, hence its inclusion in the list; if this is the case then one of the articles should say so. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nolan chart 

message: Is it original research to include "Wikipedia editors vs vandals" as an image to illustrate the concept of a false dilemma? McGeddon (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to avoid WP:SELF references.—Machine Elf 1735 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC was about WP:OR, however, I support User:Machine Elf 1735 in that it clearly violates WP:SELF so the WP:OR argument may be moot and just an exercise in debating.  Veriss (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: You cast a very wide net with your non-specific RFC assertion and the arguments above covered a lot of ground.  What specific WP:OR point are you concerned about?  Veriss (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just trying to keep it as short and neutral as possible, per the RFC guidelines. The article is currently illustrated by a poster-style graphic with the caption "One example of a false dilemma is the division of Wikipedia users into constructive 'editors' and malicious 'vandals'." - since this statement would be removed as WP:OR if added to the article (the assertion is unsourced, and appears to just be one editor saying "I think the Wikipedia editor/vandal distinction is a false dilemma"), is it also WP:OR when added as an illustrative graphic? --McGeddon (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Wikipedia example image 

message: This was removed from the article twice, stating it is not an example because it references wikipedia itself?
	
A very good example of a False Dichotomy and Morton's Fork all twisted into one package. Here is the link to the discussion on the  Deletion of the Article that has failed to make it on Wikipedia, but has been permanently stuck on Mrfivethirty's Talk page!
Can someone please let me know why this is not relevant as an example? I already took a look at the WP:SELF article and it does not make it clear how what I did was wrong. I need some clarification! 69.27.67.210 (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elliott Argument as an Example 

message: This example does not do the anti-regulation argument justice because it is not addressing the belief in property rights. There is little need for regulation because property rights and price adjustments solve the issue. If a bar opens near a quiet community, then it will be forced to compensate those affected by the negative externality of the neighbor's loss in privacy or "quietness." However, if a home is built near a bar, then the price of buying the house will be adjusted to the already known noise variable of the bar. This acknowledgement of private property rights allows price to fluctuate and compensate for negative externalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.94.13 (talk • contribs)  10:26, 24 February 2013‎ (Moved from the article onto the Talk page by Lova Falk talk 09:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  False choice example 

message: I got my hand slapped recently for changing a redirect that was clearly sad legacy without posting on the talk page first.  
So here's the deal.  Splitting (psychology) actually defines the term as an article lead term.  And I don't think this belongs here on merit, to begin with. (Check out my response to a talk item above.) — MaxEnt 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just read the splitting page more closely, and it's not a great umbrella, either, although in some respects it does land much closer: black and white thinking is a mental heuristic used to simplify the thought process (or chase away threatening complexity) that has it's roots in moralistic story telling.  Whether the princess lives or dies is not exactly a false dichotomy. At least, then, B&W could redirect to its own section (in whichever article) that does this distinction justice. — MaxEnt 17:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor black and white thinking redirect 

message: Yikes, I came to talk page after trying to understand how this figure is a false dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#/media/File:Young_America's_dilemma_-_Dalrymple._LCCN2010651418.jpg
and seems there's several other threads about other images that have been removed because they were not false dilemmas. Why is it so hard to find an example of a false dilemma? I guess it's better than the alternative of having no images at all though, right? Just kidding.
Anyway, I guess the image could have some false dilemma characteristics but it really falls short because it's grounded in some real systemic patterns that tend to lead to true dichotomies in the real world. So I don't think it's really in the spirit of the majority of false dichotomies that have no grounding at all, like "support our troops" vs "support a specific war".
And I think it's clear the artist's intent was specifically a visual that represents those real systemic dichotomy patterns so to call it a false dichotomy requires a kind of disingenuous interpretation of the art. Like... it's supposed to symbolize how the subject feels about his future. And he's not wrong because the paths available to him generally lead to choosing wealth over idealism because wealth tends to require sacrificing ideals in a competitive free market society. All-in-all I think it's not a great example and we could really do better.
49.216.226.235 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly attached to this specific image but I think it works as an illustration of false dilemmas. There are many ways and priorities how one can live one's life: as a family person, as a standup comedian, as a drug addict, as an escort, as a driving instructor, as a religious recluse, as a petty scoundrel, and, if all these should fail, as a Wikipedia editor. I think it should be clear that not every one of these paths corresponds to either "wise and great" or "rich and powerful". Some paths are neither and some may be both (like Plato's philosopher king). But I am open to suggestions if there are other images to be considered. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example image is not a false dilema? 

message: The redirect Trifurcation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 22:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Trifurcation]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]