False dilemma

{{logicnav}}{{cquote|Even crazier than golf, though, is modern American politics, where, thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a [[liberal]] or a [[conservative]].|||{{wpl|Kurt Vonnegut}}<ref>[https://inthesetimes.com/article/cold-turkey Cold Turkey] by Kurt Vonnegut (May 10, 2004) ''In These Times''.</ref>}}
A '''false dilemma''' (also known as a '''false dichotomy''') is a [[logical fallacy]] which involves presenting two opposing views, options, or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one, then the other ''must'' be accepted. The [[reality]] in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.

In other words, there are two ways in which one can commit a false dilemma. First, one can assume that there are only two (or [[Lewis Trilemma|three]], though in that case it is, strictly speaking, a "false trilemma") options when there really are many more. Second, one can take the options to be mutually exclusive when they really are not. 

The fallacy is a [[syllogistic fallacy]] and a [[formal fallacy]].

==Alternate names==
*black-or-white
*denying a conjunct
*disjunctive syllogism
*either/or fallacy
*excluded middle
*fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses
*false dichotomy
*no middle ground
*rathering

==Form==
You commit this fallacy if you interpret the negation of a conjunction (e.g. "not both A and B") as implying that at least one conjunct (either A or B) must be true.
{{syl
|2=Not (A and B)
|4=Not A
|5=C|6=Therefore, B
}}

In other words, confusing a contradiction (where one or the other must be true, but not both) with a contrary (where both could be false, but both cannot be true).

For example:
{{syl
|2=[[Evolution]] and [[creationism]] can't both be true.
|4=Evolution is not true.
|5=C|6=Therefore, creationism is true.
}}

The above example is fallacious, as it is possible for both creationism and evolution to be untrue (life suddenly appeared one day) or true (god created evolution).

==Explanation==
===Assuming only two options===
As an example of the first, here is Reed Heustis’s attempt to prove that the [[Founding Fathers]] were deeply influenced by [[John Calvin]]:
{{quotebox|By default, when one rejects Calvin's [[presupposition]], he necessarily adopts that of [[Karl Marx]]. Author of the [[Communist Manifesto]], Marx presupposed that Man is inherently good, and that all of Man's problems are the result of a bad environment.<ref>Article published in Worldview Weekend in 2009; it does not seem to be available at their website, but [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/07/21/john-calvin-founding-father/ here] is a discussion on [[Ed Brayton|Dispatches from the Culture Wars]].</ref>}}
Since the founding fathers were clearly not [[Marxist]]s, they ''must'' have been Calvinists. The rest of us may be inclined to think that, surely, there are more options here (and especially given Marxism is separated from Calvinism by centuries) than presented.

===Assuming mutual exclusion===
{{cquote|It is very simple. If I am wrong, they are right. Thus I should be doing the opposite of what I was doing, as that will be the right thing to do. I do not need to think about it. I do not need to introduce complexity where there is none.|||Castaigne<ref>[[:User talk:LANCBUser/Archive2#Vandal bin.]]</ref>}}
As an example of the second, here is Joel Richardson, in the [[WND]], criticizing [[Ron Paul]]'s foreign policies:
{{quotebox|According to Paul, radical [[Muslims]] are not radical because they have [[Irony|drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology]], but rather because [[America]]n actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance.<ref>[http://patriotupdate.com/2012/01/meet-ron-pauls-jeremiah-wright/ Here be wingnuts]</ref>}}
But of course, adopting one causal factor does not – despite what Richardson assumes – entail rejecting the other (though of course Richardson's caricatures are also [[strawmen]], even regarding an ideologue like Paul).

It is worth noting that it is ''not'' a false dilemma to present two options out of many if no conclusion is drawn based on their exclusivity: "you can have [[Fun:Tea|tea]] or [[coffee]]" is not a false dilemma; a fallacious form would require it to be presented as an argument such as "you don't want tea, therefore you '''must''' want coffee." Though even this is not necessarily a false dilemma if those are the only two options and it has been established that "you" want a drink.

===Rathering===
[[Daniel Dennett]] coined the term ''rathering'' as a "way of sliding you swiftly and gently past a ''false dichotomy''".<ref>''Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking'', Danniel C. Dennett, page 48-49</ref> It was inspired by [[Stephen Jay Gould]]'s usage of the word ''rather''; Dennett provides an example (emphases added):
{{aquote|Change does not usually occur by imperceptibly gradual alteration of entire [[species]], but '''rather''' by isolation of small populations and their geological instantaneous transformation into new species}}

Of course, ''both'' statements can be true.

Some ''ratherings'' don't use the word ''rather'', but (for example) ''not'':
{{aquote|Nervous systems need to be seen as actively generating probes of their environment, not as mere computers activating passively on inputs fed to them by sense organs.}}

Not all usages of the word ''rather'' are a false dilemma (or ''rathering''), ''rather'' it is a useful technique to detect (possible) false dilemmas.

===Alternative Advance===
This is a term coined by Dr Bo Bennett of [[Logically Fallacious]] fame, to refer to a false dilemma in which two options, essentially the same but with different wording, are present to the subject.<ref>https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Alternative-Advance</ref> They would be committing fallacious reasoning if they accepted the options as the only ones in existence, because, given more thought, there are in fact other choices. For example, a salesperson asking a potential client if they would rather be contacted by telephone or e-mail. This is alternative advance, since another option would be to not be contacted at all (and [[User:Rationalissimo|I]] would strongly encourage this). Alternative advance creates a lose-lose situation in which the subject, whatever they do, remains in the thrall of the speaker.

==Examples==
Spotted in the wild:
===Pseudoscience===
*One of the most common false dilemmas espoused by creationists, especially in the [[United States]], is that if there is any flaw at all in the theories of [[evolution]], then [[creation science]] is the only other possible truth. (Not even mainstream [[Christian]]s accepting [[theistic evolution]] is acceptable.)
*This same kind of [[woo]]ish reasoning is employed, albeit less frequently, by many [[pseudoscience]] promoters, taking the form of "since [[science]] [[Uncertainty tactic|has not perfectly explained]] phenomena ''X'' yet, my pet 
[[goat]]
 claim ''must'' be true." The obvious rebuttal to this false dilemma is that the science only needs to be tweaked (or explored more) in order to provide an explanation. Even if it can't provide an answer to everything immediately, of course, that is not proof of the "alternate" claim. 
*Many supporters of [[alternative medicine]] will claim that one must choose between "[[allopathy]]" and whatever [[magic]] potions the particular individual happens to believe in. Often, this is accompanied with claims that all scientific studies are rigged and can't be trusted; if the science on which [[evidence-based medicine]] is based is false, then the [[anecdotal evidence]] behind [[homeopathy]] (or whatever) must be good! The trouble with this is that of the hundreds of different and all anecdotally supported alternative therapies, theories, and diets, many [[Treat the cause, not the symptom|are]] [[Panacea|contradictory]] and cannot possibly all work. Even if the results of ''all'' medical studies were made up, that does not somehow make the anecdotes in favor of all the totally contradictory ideas of alternative medicine valid. In the words of [[Ben Goldacre]], "pharma being shit ''does not mean'' magic beans cure [[cancer]]".<ref>http://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/15857117862</ref>
*Many [[hereditarian]]s will accuse you of being a [[Lysenkoist]], or believing that humans are born as a "blank slate" if you don't believe that [[IQ]] and [[race]] are correlated
===Politics===
*"America — Love It Or Leave It" is a popular false dilemma. The dilemma suggests that a "true [[patriot]]" must embrace everything ever done by America, or become un-American. However, since America as a nation was ''founded'' on the concept of respectful [[political]] dissent, one must doubt the premise of this false dilemma very seriously.
*Many (but not all!) "if you're for A, you're against B"-statements are a false dilemma. President [[George W. Bush]]’s famous statement "Either you are with us, or you are with the [[terrorists]]."<ref>Can be seen [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A here.]</ref> is a good example. Believing that [[Executive power and the War on Terror|some measures]] taken by the Dubya (or [[Obama]], or any other) government were unnecessary, excessive, or morally suspect obviously doesn't entail a murderous disregard for human life — quite the opposite, in many cases. However, if such a statement is backed with a threat of action ("either you support us, or you're our enemy"), it is not a false dilemma, since the speaker is the one who decides who their enemy is.
*A false dichotomy similar to the last two surrounds discussions about [[Israel]]. One example of this is how some persons insist that being critical of the state of Israel or Israeli policies amounts to a) anti-[[Zionism]] and b) [[antisemitism]]. Another example is how persons both on the "pro-[[Palestinian]] side" and the "pro-Israeli side" claim that you cannot both support Israel's right to exist and Israel's right to self-defense and also support an independent Palestine or criticize Israeli policies towards the Palestinians.<ref>As [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrlUzkd8Z8g memorably illustrated] by [[Jon Stewart]]</ref> Similarly, you cannot dislike [[Hamas]] and [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] at the same time.
**[[Ted Cruz]] {{rep|R|TX}} said, after being booed and heckled during an appearance at a Defense of Christians unity dinner celebrating [[Christian]]s facing persecution in the [[Middle East]], "If you will not stand with [[Israel]], then I will not stand with you," then walked off the stage in a petulant frenzy.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/politics/cruz-booed-off-stage/index.html Cruz booed off stage], CNN</ref> This could also be seen as a form of ''[[argumentum ad baculum]]''.
*Some [[anti-abortion]]ists present a dilemma between "life begins at conception" and "life begins at [[birth]]", taking a denial of the latter to imply support for the former.
*[[Texas]] governor [[Rick Perry]] issued a debate challenge to [[House of Representatives|House]] Minority Leader [[Nancy Pelosi]] during his [[2012 Republican Party presidential nomination|2012 GOP presidential candidate campaign]], despite the fact that Pelosi wasn't running and is a [[Democrat]]. Performing poorly in debates against other [[Republican Party|GOP]] candidates, he asked Pelosi to debate his own plan to reformat [[Washington, D.C.]] versus (his version of) the ''status quo'' — and if she refused, declined or did not respond, he told her that "I will take it to mean you will continue your obstructionist ways in the face of much needed Washington reform." Pelosi reportedly laughed at the request and declined, saying she was unavailable to debate due to a busy schedule.<ref>[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/17/failing-miserably-in-gop-debates-perry-challenges-pelosi-instead Failing miserably in GOP debates, Perry challenges Pelosi instead], ''The Raw Story''</ref>
* The entire two-party system in America is a false dilemma, where it is often assumed that [[liberal]] and [[conservative]] are the only two political beliefs, often ignoring other views such as [[leftism]]. And that's not to mention that "conservative" and "liberal" [[neoliberalism|aren't even mutually exclusive terms to begin with]].

===Religion===
*[[Pascal's Wager]] states that it is more reasonable to believe in [[God]] and be wrong than to risk burning in [[Hell]] &mdash; which would be a pretty safe bet if one assumes that [[Jehovah]] is the one and only true God and that He has [[Omnipotence|supreme power]] and ultimate authority over all of the multitude of other [[deity|deities]] that have been proposed over the millennia. Pascal simply dismissed all other possibilities.
*The concept, from both sides of the "[[debate]]", that science and [[religion]] are [[Conflict thesis|mutually exclusive]] and one cannot believe in both. ([[NOMA]] is an attempt to resolve this.) On the other hand, "God exists or god does not exist" is a true dichotomy.
* Speaking of which, from the atheist side, one either totally accepts [[Non-overlapping magisteria]], or one is a misogynistic, [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] [[New Atheism|New Atheist]].
*[[C. S. Lewis]] perpetrated the famous "[[Lewis Trilemma|Lord, Liar, Lunatic]]" false ''trilemma'': "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things [[Jesus]] said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a [[Insanity|lunatic]] — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the [[Devil]] of [[Hell]]. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse." This trilemma is itself based on a false dilemma: ''either'' the claim of divinity attributed to the man Jesus is to be accepted as true and right and good, ''or'' that claim attributed to the man Jesus ''must be rejected'' as false: either insanely wrong (though this horn has the problem that [[Stopped clock|“lunatics” can still say things that prove “true and right and good”]] or conversely that [[Inverse stopped clock|he did teach “good” morals but messiahhood was the “insane” belief he would allow his followers to never really give up]]) or morally evil. Either you accept Jesus as "the Son of God," or you think this is no more valid than "I am a poached egg," and "I am God" is a lie from "the Devil of Hell."
*And lest we forget, {{bible|Matthew|12|30|33}}. (For the [[Bible|Biblically]] challenged, it starts with "He that is not with me is against me" and continues in the same direction.)
===Miscellaneous===
*Darth Vader in ''[[Fun:Star Wars|Star Wars]] III: Revenge of the Sith'' told Obi-Wan Kenobi "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy," to which Obi-Wan replies, with some [[irony]], "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121766/quotes?item=qt0333050 Lucas!]</ref>
*The very common claim that one must be either [[Laissez-faire|completely against all government regulations]] (and [[Supply-side economics|in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy]]) or else a staunch [[communist]] who believes [[Tankie|the Eastern bloc was right all along and the Cold War was won by the wrong side]]. This doesn’t take into account the many capitalist ideologies where government regulation exists, such as [[Nordic model|the social democracies of Scandinavia]], or anticapitalist ideologies that don't involve authoritarian states such as [[anarchism]] (which explicitly opposed both sides of the Cold War).
*Another common false dilemma is "kill or be killed". In almost all circumstances, there are alternatives to either killing or being killed. Nonetheless, the [[Nuremberg defense]] in its most absurd and [[PRATT|untrue]] application says, "I had to kill those people, otherwise I would have been killed next" — which is demonstrably [[bullshit]], since no Wehrmacht soldier or [[SS]] member who refused to partake in executions was executed. Pay was cut and transfers to the (rather unpleasant) Eastern Front were issued, but no death warrant was ever found with "refusal to execute prisoners" as the reason.

==See also==
*[[Catch-22]]
*[[God of the gaps]]
*[[Morton's fork]]
*[[Balance fallacy]] — insisting on a middle-ground regardless of the merits of the two ends
{{otherlang
|fa=دوراهی_اشتباهی}}

==External links==
*{{wpa|False dilemma}}
*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/denyconj.html Denying a Conjunction], [[Fallacy Files]]
*[https://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html The Black-or-White Fallacy], Fallacy Files
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Black-or-White Black or White], IEP
*[http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/fd.htm False Dilemma], Stephen Downes
*[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white Your logical fallacy is black-or-white], [[YLFI]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Formal fallacies]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Categories: Formal fallacies, Logic, Pseudoscience