The False Alternative of the Either/Or Attitude
It seems to be increasingly clear that society in the United States is becoming a nation whose level of discussion (certainly politically) has devolved to the level of false alternatives which assume there is no middle ground.
This attitude is a logical fallacy. What this fallacy of false alternatives does is to assume that there are, to any given situation or topic, only a few alternatives and, at the same time, assuming that only one of those alternative options is true. Its a fallacy that operates in terms of black/white (or blue), either/or, or from the position of extremes. What this line of thinking does is oversimplify a situation or problem: it's all their fault; you are either with us or against us; it is either hot or cold.
This way of thinking makes the assumption that there is no middle ground or no gray area in any given situation. For example, and this example comes from the book Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer: "Absolutist thinking or thinking in extremes is quite frequently found in political rhetoric. The issue of so-called socialized medicine is often presented in terms of false alternative: 'Either we allow the government to take total control of the field of medicine or we must allow our doctors to be free of governmental restrictions.' Surely there are a number of middle ground alternatives to the problem of individual care."
But if you want to promote one view and demonize all others, offering a false alternative is a great way to stifle discussion. And thinking in extremes requires much less mental activity than actually trying to determine if there are, in fact, more sides to a story, more avenues of approach, and more solutions to a problem.
We seem to find ourselves beset by a world of logical fallacies that insist there are only two choices in all things. What we need to do is not to be held captive by those false alternatives, even when that seems to be all that is offered. We also need to be the voices of moderation and of the bridge building middle. Of course there will be those for whom middle means sell-out. As I once heard someone say, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
We have to be willing to imagine alternatives. We have to, in the words of Walter Brueggemann, out imagine the empire of the either/or. Once our imagination has been freed from the fallacious thought crime of false alternatives, we can reason again. Then, once all plausible alternatives have been considered, then we can determine the best course of action to complex issues that is supported by reason and evidence, not emotionalism and extremism.
This attitude is a logical fallacy. What this fallacy of false alternatives does is to assume that there are, to any given situation or topic, only a few alternatives and, at the same time, assuming that only one of those alternative options is true. Its a fallacy that operates in terms of black/white (or blue), either/or, or from the position of extremes. What this line of thinking does is oversimplify a situation or problem: it's all their fault; you are either with us or against us; it is either hot or cold.
This way of thinking makes the assumption that there is no middle ground or no gray area in any given situation. For example, and this example comes from the book Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer: "Absolutist thinking or thinking in extremes is quite frequently found in political rhetoric. The issue of so-called socialized medicine is often presented in terms of false alternative: 'Either we allow the government to take total control of the field of medicine or we must allow our doctors to be free of governmental restrictions.' Surely there are a number of middle ground alternatives to the problem of individual care."
But if you want to promote one view and demonize all others, offering a false alternative is a great way to stifle discussion. And thinking in extremes requires much less mental activity than actually trying to determine if there are, in fact, more sides to a story, more avenues of approach, and more solutions to a problem.
We seem to find ourselves beset by a world of logical fallacies that insist there are only two choices in all things. What we need to do is not to be held captive by those false alternatives, even when that seems to be all that is offered. We also need to be the voices of moderation and of the bridge building middle. Of course there will be those for whom middle means sell-out. As I once heard someone say, "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
We have to be willing to imagine alternatives. We have to, in the words of Walter Brueggemann, out imagine the empire of the either/or. Once our imagination has been freed from the fallacious thought crime of false alternatives, we can reason again. Then, once all plausible alternatives have been considered, then we can determine the best course of action to complex issues that is supported by reason and evidence, not emotionalism and extremism.
Comments
Post a Comment