Talk:False dilemma

410:

even including some of my fellow scientists, and I believe the reason why many scientists ignore these SIMPLE and OBVIOUS facts which the ice cores show, is that they now -- just as the "consensus" who said that an ice age was coming in the 1970's was slow to admit they were wrong ('after equally alarmist (argumentum ad consequentium) like: "It is a cold fact: the Global COOLING (emphasis added) presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with FOR TEN THOUSAND YEARS (emph added). Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species"), and when no ice age or dangerous cooling came, their "consensus" prediction which contradicted and ignored the SIMPLE historical pattern of the ice cores (the 100k-year pattern which showed Y2K SHOULD get hot, not cold as they predicted in the 1970's despite that they were only 55k years into this 100k-year cycle :-) ), and they ignored that the recent temperature-swings were TINY -- and now global-warming advocates, similar to the global cooling crowd back then, cannot bring themselves to admit that there are many flaws in:

416:- and in their alarmist predictions, which they staked their professional reputations on -- or as PRof. Richard Lindzen of MIT put it: '"consensus...reached before the research had even begun" to which Timothy Ball concurs: "The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted ".' Frankly, I don't even consider them scientists, they are ideologues who jumped to a conclusion -- just as in the 1970's Global Cooling scare -- before significant data was in. I think they will be as stubborn and take as long as it took GWB and his own "experts" to admit they goofed on Iraq intel about WMD; because certainly if these scientists are not merely just being stubborn, they'd OPENLY DISCUSS the above facts about the ice cores in the mass media; I read 3 newspapers each day, and never saw these facts about the ice cores discussed. But I believe the patterns shown by the ice cores are SO simple and obvious that laymen can evaluate them for themselves -- and either ignore those facts as many IPCC (politically) chosen scientists do, or honestly ask yourself why, if manmade global warming is present and SIGNIFICANT, why is today's temperature LOWER than in half of the last 4 interglacials? 406:'today's temperature changes are not one extreme ("black" of the Black-and-White fallacy) nor the other ("white" of the Black-and-White fallacy), because (a) the modern-day cooling and warming are small changes relative to the Earth's temperature history, (b) today's temperatures are NORMAL and to be expected as a part of the Earth's 100k year cycle of interglacials which is natural, not anthropogenic nor otherwise likely to be a "new" factor to change the Earth's overall temperature patterns) and these ice ages (and interglacials, literally "between ice ages," i.e. temperature-peaks) come at 100k year periods, whereas the "scientific consensus" in the 1970's (argumentum ad populum) was that an ice age would come only 55k years into this cycle despite that even the temperature-data today shows it's a 100k-year cycle not a 55k-year cycle :-) and (c) today's temperature is not extreme nor "never before seen" and it is well within the historic norms for natural (non-anthropogenic) temperature swings because fully HALF of the last 4 interglacials had even higher (more "extreme") temperatures than today -- and those higher temperatures came before mankind even existed.' 721:..... Politics is infamous for false dilemmas due in part to the economic and personal stakes in political life. Someone who says "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" is a false dichotomy if one is confused with the terrorists because one dissents with political agendas that have no connection to terrorism (fiscal policy, labor-management relations, school prayer, evolution, abortion, economic corruption). Actions that might directly aid terrorists, as in laundering money or delivering information between cells would imply being 'with terrorists', but dissent with a government on subsidies for privileged industries or its policies of racial or religious discrimination doesn't comprise 'being with the terrorists', although the government that states such a dichotomy might wish to treat any dissent with its policies as severely as it would treat terrorists. One could argue that a government that enforces exploitative or dehumanizing policies (extreme examples: nazi Germany, apartheid-era South Africa) through force is itself terrorist. 403:

during two of the last four interglacial temperature-peaks, peaks during which mankind didn't even exist, so the Earth obviously got hotter than it is presently even without anthropogenic warming, and did so on a regular basis. (b) The ice cores ALSO show that these interglacial temperature peaks came at 100,000 year intervals 5 times in a row, and not coincidentally, today is within 5k years (5%) of the normal, "scheduled" record-high temperatures which the Earth has seen each 100k years. (c) The ice cores further show temperature swings more than 10 times larger than the temperatures since the mid-20th-century, so these recent temperature-swings -- which caused a panic about an "ice age" coming during the 1970's and a "meltdown" since Y2K or so -- are NOT (historically) "extreme," they are TINY. The facts exhibited by the ice cores, to recap, are that:

1363:"Do you want to do your homework on the chair or the couch?" is still a False Dilemma. The excluded choice is "not do homework." It would be the same as "spend money on space exploration, or feed the homeless." The option "spend no money" is available but hidden, just like "not do homework." The oppose votes argue that since the false dilemma is offered and enforced by some figure of authority, that it is something else. The choices offered by the "parent" in the above scenario are the same as the ones regularly offered to us by our elected politicians or heavy-handed managers. Being forced to chose one of the False Dilemma's options doesn't turn it into something else -- it's still the same fallacy -- just with a less receptive moderator to debate with. Googling for the phrase 2232:

group on Knowledge. Additionally, nobody seems to have found any other public domain image to use on this article, and this is no different than any banner out there that asks people to think in black and white, and wanting to remove it just because it belongs to Knowledge is in a sense discriminatory. Now that I read the article, maybe it belongs better in "black and white thinking" section (the phrase itself in the article "Another example is someone who labels other people as all good or all bad." fits perfectly with the image), but I still think the image has a place in this article. I originally posted it at the top of the page as it had a good place in the free right of the article, without disturbing the text. --

1419:. 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. 1119:: I think MPS may have misunderstood the suggestion. The proposal does not involve changing the name of this article, only adding the content of another article to this one (and creating a redirect). As for the name of this article, in my experience "false dilemma" is at least as common as "false dichotomy," if not overwhelmingly more so, in university courses and philosophy journal articles, and is the easier term to understand for those without a background in logic, and so is clearly the correct name for this article. (I have no idea what MPS means by "intellectual term", a phrase which comes across as expressing a preference for big words for their own sake.) 392:) -- see the Earth as warming or cooling and they have stated that the *recent* warming and/or cooling -- i.e. since the mid-20th-century -- are/were catastrophic and extreme temperature changes (so they are "discounting the middle," one name for this type of fallacy, because they discount the possibility that we are in the "grey" area in the Black-and-White fallacy so to speak, despite that according to all ice cores I've seen, we ARE in the non-extreme, "grey" area, not at a black-and-white extreme (I'm an environmental engineer, so I've seen LOTS of ice cores): 3404:- it is a very long list so I could have missed it but "false dichotomy" there is just treated as the same as "false dilemma" and I don't see any other fallacy that looks like it could be the same one. It does rather look to me as if somehow it has slipped through the net and not got into wikipedia for some reason, or got edited away by mistake in some previous edit. Yes - my understanding of the guidelines also, that there's nothing wrong with a bit of duplication so long as there are some substantial differences and a reason for having a separate article. 3010:. Because of SELFREF, but also because it is unclear and potentially misleading. For a true false dilemma, you need to be ignoring logical alternative options, not just (arguably) misrepresenting a situation. I'm not sure what the ignored option is in this case (except, maybe, "I don't give a damn about whether Knowledge gets vandalised"). Anyway, it's at least debatable. But you need to know quite a lot about Knowledge to get into the debate, which is why the illustration is a bad idea. It's too obscure an issue for the passer-by reader. -- 876:

implication that the choice is difficult. A false dichotomy would be: real numbers are either positive or negative (a real number might be zero, and so we have a trichotomy rather than a dichotomy). A false dichotomy would be: I must either vote for the Democrat or the Republican (you might not vote at all or might vote for an independent.) A more common use of the false dichotomy is where there is an entire spectrum of choices but the dichotomy implies only two: You are either with me or against me.

3636:, aka "black and white thinking", so I can at least see the connection there. (However, linking to splitting is perhaps sufficient. And I see we already have a "see also" to splitting in the body of the article: don't need two.) And a one-party system certainly presents a false choice, although not a dilemma: "All other parties are either outlawed or only enjoy limited and controlled participation in elections", so it's typically a choice between 853:

his way into the aristocracy might have to choose between the gold and drowning. That's an unpleasant choice, but not one created by human design. False dilemmas are often human constructions that deny legitimate alternatives. The 'choice' that the robber offers 'Your money or your life!' forcefully denies the possibility of a victim to pass through with his cash, the situation that a good society enforces with harsh sanctions against robbery. --

347: 493:...and multi-party systems where the minority parties must compromise with (and essentially be absorbed by) another party, in "power sharing" if you google for the quoted term, will still marginalize the minority parties even though that is NOT a "two party system"... but this entire topic is a bit of a Red Herring because it has nothing to do with the False Dilemma fallacy. ;-) 191: 1726:"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." 249: 222: 3528: 3499:

as a petty scoundrel, and, if all these should fail, as a Knowledge 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.

3234:

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.

1132:. The above comments notwithstanding, I don't see much point in the merge. One article is about the use of a certain phrase in politics and/or history, the other is about a logical fallacy. That one happens to (arguably) be an instance of the other doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to merge them, any more than it is a reason to merge, say, 259: 2152:

doesn't exist just because a proposition gives a doubtful representation of reality. It's really about whether it is logically inclusive of alternative ways of resolving it. In our case, it is not clear what alternative is being excluded (except apathy, maybe), so I don't think we have a very clear illustration of what a false dilemma is.

420:

small relative to the Earth's temperature-history. These are well-supported (even with citations to ice core graphics from environmentalists themselves) scientific FACTS, thus a long entry (sorry) to scientifically *support* why the wikipedia contributor is wrong and the blogger is right, although I tried to keep this in layman's terms.

894:

two mutually exclusive courses of action, where one choice is probably better than the other, and it is unknown which one (e.g. "Pick an even or odd number. We will roll the ball; if it ends up on an odd number, you win if you picked an odd number; if it ends up on an even number, you win if you picked an even number. Good luck."

1699:

here include false dilemmas by a Republican, by a Democrat, and by an Independent, and an example of black and white thinking from the UK. The biggest problem with these examples is that three out of four are from the US. Instead of deleting the examples, why not find better ones, especially examples from outside the US.

1086:. People who want to read an article about the phrase "You're either with us, or against us" can go to that page, and people who want to read about false dilemma in general can go to a separate page. A cat is a type of mammal -- should cat be merged into mammal? I don't see a strong reason to support the merge proposal. — 2194:"it is not clear what alternative is being excluded" - well how about the readers? It also asks you to "take a side". There's also the logical fallacy that vandals are actually "editors" too, in the larger sense of the word. If anything, it illustrates a great number of fallacies, but this is the most obvious. -- 3352:

choices are presented as if mutually exclusive when they are not. It's often used in fallacious arguments. E.g. when critics of space missions say: "Why fund space missions when there are starving people in the world?" - as if it was impossible to do both - continue with space missions and address world hunger.

684:

you're with the terrorists" is a fallacy because it does claim that those are the only choices. It leads to false conclusions in some cases. For example, Saddam Hussein was in no way "with us", but it is also true that he saw Al Quida as a threat to his dictatorship and suppressed them with everything he had.

3337:

Okay, yes, good point, I think "false dichotomy" is sometimes a dilemma, sometimes not. For a situation where it is a dilemma - if you have to choose one or other in a survey form, are you a dog or a cat lover - or are you left or right handed, multiple choice - you have to make a choice, and you are

2690:

uses "The view of Jeff Davis Peak from the glacier-carved summit of Wheeler Peak, Nevada. Because Boundary Peak, Nevada is partially in California, and is actually a sub-peak of Montgomery Peak, the shorter Wheeler Peak can be considered the tallest mountain in Nevada." and other images from all over

2449:

I fail to see the joke since I'm not from the US and did not listen to any of Bush's press conferences. You could make an original research article/essay on a more liberal site/wiki about that if you want :) Beyond the joke, an article with a picture is better than an article without a picture. And I

1917:

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

1237:

I agree completely with PurplePlatypus that "either/ or fallacy" is not the commonly used term for this fallacy and thus it should not be labelled this way in Knowledge. Furthermore, the concept of "your with us or against us" is narrower in scope than the false dilemma. I say these articles should

818:

Bernard Baruch once stated that all that he needed to do to get good advice on investments was to watch what Sir Winston Churchill (who had his virtues, but consistently exposed incompetence in reading economic trends) did and then did the diametric opposite. Of course that refers to something with a

409:

All of these facts exhibited by ice cores add up to say that 'temperature swings since the 20th-century are within the Earth's normal range and thus not "extreme" -- not black nor white, but grey: somewhere in between the extremes of black and white' -- and these ice cores are ignored by some people,

3476:

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

2959:

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 Knowledge users into constructive 'editors' and malicious 'vandals'." - since this

2294:

It's not quite a SELFREF, but we shouldn't be too self-indulgent here - we should step back and look at the picture from the perspective of a reader who knows nothing about Knowledge. From that angle, it might as well be a random website logo with "The Foos or the Bars! Which side are you on?" - the

1808:

I think this section is 90% unnecessary. The whole article explains false dilemmas/dichtomies/whatever, so I think that one is already able to tell false from true dilemmas without needing examples. Also, if the page name is changed, this will require changing as with other instances of "dilemma" in

1642:

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

1227:"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. 893:

I'm surprised to see that this objection has gone unaddressed for 16 years. Indeed, a dichotomy and a dilemma are different things: a dichotomy is a strict distinction between two kinds of things (e.g. "A natural number is either even or odd."), while a dilemma is a choice needing to be made between

875:

Di-lemma and di-chotomy both imply two, A or not A. "A natural number is either even or odd," is a correct dichotomy. "I must either eat or starve," is a correct dilemma. A dichotomy simply separats things into two parts, a dilemma implies that one must choose one part and not the other, with the

852:

When one speaks of a false dilemma, typically involving two harsh choices (Sobriety or drunkenness), one must of course contrast them to genuine situations, as in abandoning something precious to save ones life. The sailor on a sinking ship who has a large amount of gold that would allow him to buy

619:

One non political example is a story they told me at school when I was a child about a city boy that complained when it was raining because he could play at the streets and a farm boy that complained when it was not raining because its important that it rains because plants need it. There is a third

402:

This ice core covers the past 4 interglacial periods, and exhibits that the recent temperatures -- since the mid-20th-century -- are NOT extreme because: (a) today's temperatures are well within what the Earth has done since before mankind even existed, e.g. the cores show that Earth has been hotter

3498:

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,

2655:

Considering it's the third time you maliciously put words in my mouth (keyboard/typing), you've lost any good faith second chances with me. What I meant with that, if it was not obvious enough, was that anyone lazy enough to just tag something as OR instead of looking for sources because they don't

2525:

I do not agree it would be inappropriate, but I don't plan on tackling those waters. Also that sentence is too implying that there is, in fact, such a false dilemma. On the other hand, putting in a picture and saying "This picture depicts a false dilemma" is obvious, true and hard to contest to the

2353:

Also, your argument is faulty. "Editor" is someone who edits. "Vandal" is someone who vandalizes, thus someone who destroys/does bad things. That should be obvious to any reader. Tthe reader, knowing he's just a reader, would wonder "What about the readers?" :) Worst case, they'd wonder "What about

1698:

There are those who think that education should be bloodless, and that examples of logic should be limited to statements about Socrates and mortals. In fact, logic is a living discipline, and it is reasonable to apply it to current events, though admittedly that rarely happens. The examples given

1595:

Nobody else seems to be bothered by these, so maybe it's just me. One thing I don't like is that they are read from bottom to top. And, in this particular case, they only cover one case of false dichotomy, and not the most common case. The most common case, it seems to me, is "Either A or B", "A

724:

It's wiser to discuss the logic or illogic of political dichotomies of the past so that one can explain a false dichotomy. For example, an American negrophobe during the Civil Rights struggle might have posed the dichotomy as 'segregation or communism'. The retort isn't that the communists were for

702:

This fallacy applies to policies as much as to (versions of) "truths", or "facts" as you call them, as long as one is to choose among a wrongfully limited set of choices. An example is an example and not a point of view. There is no NPOV in examples if they are valid. It rather is important whether

426:

YIKES!!!!! The idea is to clean up the entry on "False Dilemma", not launch a screed on global warming. BTW, your screed on Global Warming commits the fallacy of Appeal to Authority which is laughable since your screed is 100% wrong. You claim to be an "environmental engineer". Even an engineer has

419:

In conclusion, 'the ice core data exhibit that it is a Black-and-White fallacy to claim that the global temperatures recently were "extreme"'; by any objective (historical) measure these are not extreme temperatures. The Earth's natural (pre-human) temperature swings show that they are THE NORM and

383:

I agree, and more importantly, the last example about global warming isn't even a False Dilemma fallacy by the blogger himself, as the wikipiedia contributor claims... It's actually that the blogger is accusing environmentalists of holding to a Black-and-White fallacious view of the Earth's climate

3480:

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

3450:

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

2387:

too much from the reader, here. A reader who is completely unfamiliar with workings of the Knowledge project, who is unaware that it is collaboratively built by volunteer editors, will have no idea what an "editor" or a "vandal" is. The caption should explain the context, and once we start writing

1627:

It is true, monotheistic beliefs automatically demonify any other deity/s or god/s without question or proper research, but it also happens with any other belief system mono or polytheistic and in non religious contexts; the present information highlights every aspect of false dilemma in a general

1570:

Long time between edits. Perhaps you could list some specifics which are confusing and or unhelpful, because I really don't know what you are referring to. Problems should first be attempted to be fixed in the images themselves, then in the captions and finally if problems still exist it should be

1305:

I disagree with how false choice is being defined. I have always understood false choice to be where a choice is given, but the two options are really the same. Usually with parents to children i.e. "Do you want to do your homework on the chair or the couch?" The debate is about doing homework,

543:

Acually, he is *not* right. The only time your vote is not "wasted" is when it changes the outcome of the election -- which only happens when the vote is otherwise a tie. This is slightly more likely under some voting systems, but the reality is that your vote will not change the outcome (IOW it

3351:

I'd support a separate page for "False dichotomy" - and link to that page from this one. Perhaps it already has and we just need to add the page to "see also" or some such, but I haven't found it yet. So far following the links through "see also" I haven't found anything about this argument where

2722:

Any false dilemma is by definition, an incorrect assertion that there are only two sides. It doesn't really come up whose false dilemma is more "preponderant" in a media, only that it makes you chose between seemingly only two categories. The intention of a creator usually doesn't matter, as it's

2454:

hard to believe readers would piece together what "editor", "vandal" and any of the other missing parts are referring to in the picture. I don't find that phrasing OR, but rather descriptive of the picture. It's like saying "the left side contains white background on which is written and drawn in

2302:

say in the article about it, because the false dilemma has never been invoked publicly or quoted by a reliable source - it's just one Knowledge editor who thought a particular situation was a false dilemma and made a picture of it. The implication here seems to be that images don't have to follow

1003:

The False dilemma is related to the claim. A claim in philosophy is a statement that can be evaluated as true or false. A claim is not a definition and is not a description (neither definition nor description can be evaluated as true or false). In the False dilemma a statement is made, and the

676:

I agree it is confusing because it is a statement of policy, not fact (the policy being that we would no longer accept neutral tolerance or harboring of terrorist activity). You might as well include "Give me liberty or give me death" or "Live free or die" as an example of this logical fallacy.

3233:

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

2737:

while using the black and white colors portraying absolute evil and absolute good, is a very defining image for the subject. Yes, we're nitpicking on the caption to make it more neutral and to not go into error-building, but the validity of the image related to the subject of the page is hard at

2231:

I've added the image especially because its purpose is neither ironic nor humorous on Knowledge - many many editors are damned straight in that thinking, or are asked to be like that. Many user pages contain this image in a completely serious sense, and thus is not representative to only a niche

2067:

It's a example of the fallacy in logic, though not (necessarily) in practice. It's logically fallacious because someone who lies about one thing could otherwise be telling valuable truth (which the rule doesn't account for). It is often not practically fallacious, however, because in a situation

3318:

The article says that "false dilemma" is also called "false dichotomy" which isn't exactly true. False dichotomy could be an example, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a dilemma, perhaps a false choice. A false dichotomy might not actually be a choice in a practical sense. It often comes up in

2151:

Well, I suppose it's possible that someone would find it humorous. I don't think that an example that requires the general reader to understand the behind the scenes workings of WP is a good one. Plus, I don't think you're understanding the nature of the concept quite correctly. A false dilemma

683:

what makes "Give me liberty or give me death" a non-fallacy is the fact that the speaker is not claiming that liberty and death are the only choices, but rather that the third option (living as a slave) exists but is not acceptable to him. Not the same thing at all. "You're either with us, or

2510:

Captioning the image isn't original research, but putting the image there at all is original research - it's not illustrating anything in body of the article, it's just adding somebody's opinion, in the form of an image. Do you agree that it would be inappropriate to say "an example of a false

2495:

as being divided into constructive contributors and malicious vandals" would not be original research. It would also drop the self-reffy "editor" or "Knowledge editor". It also sounds more in the line of my "Example of false dilemma on Knowledge" turned into "Example of false dilemma regarding

2368:

The comparison is also faulty: to understand what "foos" or "bars" means in your context, I'd have to read the opera you're referring to (which I must confess I have no idea), while understanding "editor" and "vandal" and making the association is easily intuitive for anyone who knows English.

2833:

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

2318:

If someone in politics says "You can be either a democrat or a republican, which side do you chose?", even if you don't know the US context politics, even if you don't know what exactly a "democrat" or "republican" means (as I know, in different countries, those words have different political

2129:

Seems obvious to me. Users can't be divided into editors and vandals. There aren't two ideal "sides", one just and authoritarian, one destructive and anarchic, with a clear dividing line separating the two. In fact, correctness/purity/justice, represented by the color white, and authoritarian

2040:

I assume it's taking it to mean a false dilemma between liars and non-liars (or lies and truths). However Google Scholar finds no references that link "false dilemma" (or similar) and "falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus" (or "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", which incidentally only differs in

2388:

that caption we realise it will just have to say "one photoshop user regarded those who edit the articles on Knowledge as being divided into constructive contributors and malicious vandals; an example of a false dilemma", which - were it added to the article body - we would quickly delete as

667:

The speaker's assumption is in itself fallacious, because it implies a false dilemma. If I'd assume that you're either a Bolivian or a Nigerian, that would be equally fallacious. You can't be both, obviously, but you could be neither. Do you mean to say "Just because somebody makes illogical

2265:

No it doesn't. In print, on forks and mirrors or on any other sites or context, an image of a billboard in Massachusetts reading "Example of false dilemma on a billboard in Massachusetts" can be replaced with this one and the text "Example of false dilemma on Knowledge" and it would make no

845:

Out of the list of terms covering the same issue, I think that false dilemma is the least practical because a dilemma implies, contrary to popular use, a choice between two unpleasant alternatives. That doesn't necessarily apply to the issue discussed in this article, so I think that "false

2455:

black, and the right side contains black background on which is written and drawn in white", there's no original research in describing the colors or circumstances of a picture if they're obvious. Does Knowledge REALLY needs expert sourcing on describing the color or content of an image? --

588:

The original definition and the discussion here is quite interesting but has one major flaw: your use of the word "dilemma". A dilemma is not a situation in which one has to decide between a more or less positive and a more or less negative alternative, but rather a situation in which both

2548:

to write in an article that "Knowledge editors/vandals are an example of a false dilemma" (or, by the same token, adding the unsourced assertion that "President Obama said X in a speech, which is an example of a false dilemma"), then I'm not sure there's much else I can really say here.

561:

That being said, this article really needs a rewrite that removes all examples that are hot button issues for some people. Obsolete (an electon from 1804) or purely fictional (the big-endian/little-endian debate in Gulliver's travels) examples would get the point across without the POV

1646:

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.

1959:? 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.-- 3108:

a false dilemma in itself? It's either you support the "contributors" or you support the vandals. There are many former Wikipedians that don't support a lot of contributors, yet don't support vandalism or vandals, yet they may still be involved in Knowledge and Knowledge works.

753:

To be sure, some people would sacrifice their liberty to get or achieve wealth, privilege, infamy, revenge, safety, or material comfort; the people who agreed with Patrick Henry recognized the value of liberty and were ready to act decisively and sacrificially on its behalf.

3472:

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.

2622:

Continuing on what I said above, I think I showed myself as someone willing to discuss and to allow constructive changes in the article/text/image/w/e. Do what you will, I can't stop you and you don't have to pretend to find lame excuses to do what you think you must.

3085:

rather than what you are, so the only third party that could be excluded would be "people who don't care if Knowledge is vandalized". And one could make an argument (which I think is what the poster is trying to do) that by ignoring or tolerating vandalism, you are

2695:: the article is not going to touch upon - or even have articles on - the different circumstance of how, where, why those image were taken, their intensity, their relation with each other etc. They're just there to exemplify, and because they can be used freely. -- 829:

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.

2179:

The image which is on the article right now is obviously a false dilemma... There are plenty of people like me, who are neither editors nor vandals, yet the image only presents those two options. As a wiki user, at least, I think it fits the article perfectly.

2858:, 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. -- 2960:

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 Knowledge editor/vandal distinction is a false dilemma"), is it also WP:OR when added as an illustrative graphic? --

3481:

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.

387:

some environmentalists -- from Gore to Lowell Ponte in the 1970's claiming that the cooling back then was going to be another ice age (slippery slope fallacy: a small temperature drop won't necessarily become a large one), to the politicized UN IPCC today

1074:", probably is more a "false dilemma" because it's not a policy. If that's the case, then merging the article into "false dilemma" would be wrong since the paraphrase could be either a "false dilemma" or a "speech act" and easily debatable as either. -- 1544:

Grumpyoldman1 likes the diagrams in this article. I find the diagrams confusing and unhelpful. They are certainly not the standard flowcharts that are sometimes used. Since Grumpyoldman and I disagree, others need to weigh in on this subject.

2024:

Seemingly completely irrelevant section of the article. "Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus" How is it even a false dilemma? It does not fit in false dilemma's definitions...I have little knowledge in this area. So maybe someone can enlighten me?

2476:

to say "one example of a false dilemma is that of 'editors' and 'vandals' on Knowledge" without sources in the article body (which you would agree that it was?), I can't see how it's acceptable to include the exact same assertion as an image.

1400:

Anyway, I already did the merge. I don't see why more nuanced meaning of false choice (or if it is a different thing) or whatever discussion can't be handled here. As it stood the current material was almost identical, so a merge made sense.

882:

Incidentally, there are two different paradoxes which, by various authors, have gone by the name The Prisoner's Dilemma. One involves whether or not to inform on your accomplice. The other involves knowing on what day you will be executed.

2732:

in all of this, it's to find the most adequate image to portray the "false dilemma" concept. Since a "most adequate" image does not exist, I suggested we go with what we've got. And again, in my opinion, the directness of asking a reader to

1708:

24.18.213.117 has put an NPOV tag on the article, presumably prefering to complain about the examples rather than to suggest better ones. I would like to see some indication of what sort of examples 24.18.213.117 would find acceptable.

2571:

entrapment scenario is low. Putting words in my mouth is lower. I do consider that putting such a text would be in this world and in many senses of common sense, very appropriate, but I'm sure someone would just remove it, claiming

1983:

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

3609:

I agree, they should be removed. See-also links should be clearly relevant to the topic of the article, not just vaguely related. If someone feels like cleaning up this section, there are various other problematic links, like

1554:

It has been almost a month, and still no response to my question about the diagrams. When there are only two people involved, and when they strongly hold opposite opinions, we really need other people to express an opinion.

2068:

where someone is presenting their word as evidence and their word has been demonstrated to be false in certain details, then it does follow that it would often be unwise to trust them at their word on certain other details.

1897:

I must say I don't like the current bar / noise pollution issue. Perhaps another one could be thought of? Perhaps the demand by a parent that a son must either Go to university or be a bum for the rest of his life... ?

1168:

The phrase, "You're either with us, or against us", is widely used and has historical relevance. Enough so to be a seperate article. They may be interconnected via the "see also" section, considering they have relations.

2434:

If you think the article really needs a picture, and that anything would be better than nothing, we could just have a picture of George W Bush giving a press conference, and a caption underneath it repeating his quote.

3593:

to the "see also" section. Out of these, I understand the relevance of only the last one, since a false dilemma can be posed as a trick question. What is the connection to the other articles, and why isn't there any?

620:

alternative, rain at right, the plants will get their water and the city boy will be able to play at the streets (unless plants specifically need to receive water during the day because of some farming related thing).

3374:

From the look of the arguments above, several articles were merged, and they came up with "false dilemma" as the title. It would probably be better to have a few small articles, even if there was some dduplication.--

413:- their past work (e.g. computer models which governments were supposed to take action on, despite that the models now are shown to be off by 10 to 100 times the amount of temperature-change that the model predicted) 912:

and thanks for pointing out the unaddressed issue. You are right that the meanings of the terms "dilemma" and "dichotomy" are similar but not identical. However, I'm not sure that their meanings can be that neatly

395:

This includes ice cores which some environmentalists themselves agree are "good" ice cores (i.e. good data, not flawed bythe collection technique), e.g. the graph for the ice core at the environmentalist website:

1584:

Problems I get with these things are either about clarity or about POV, clarity has always been resolved before but POV dispute is much harder due to the nature of these things dealing in logic versus opinion. -

153: 2727:

through his statement, nor would any such authors want to have their phrases scrutinized and tagged as such. That doesn't mean it's not. I am forced to repeat myself, the idea isn't to include a self-ref about

3300:

I'm not sure where this would go, but seems it should be mentioned somewhere on the page. I came here just now out of interest as a result of a google search for information about that type of false dilemma.

2511:

dilemma would be 'editors' and 'vandals' on Knowledge" in the body of the article (worded however you like, but ultimately being unattributed to a source)? If so, why is an equivalent image any different? --

3451:

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. —

1312:

for the same reason as the unsigned comment above; I think Knowledge currently defines "false choice" in a completley incorrect manner, and this proposal only makes sense with the incorrect definition.

380:

Any way you could find some examples that are a little less politically charged? This article sounds more like a rant against the current administration than an unbiased article on the False Dilemma.

2530:

divided into vandals and editors, only that there's a picture saying it is and that those who advocate its legitimacy want people to choose while offering only too apparent possible choices. --

2496:

Knowledge", thus eliminating any implication that most of Knowledge adheres to this ideology (although that is probably the truth, but hard to verify and attracts offended image removers). --

457:

The article shows no evidence that the US has more "false dilemma" fallacies in its politics than elsewhere. Europe has its share, and non-democratic countries have more than their share.

2580:"), and since the majority of Wikipedians would feel the same (i.e. word in the parenthesis), majority wins, so I just won't bother. Claiming that because I'd say something I didn't, I'd 2303:

guidelines for article content - if I think I've spotted a false dilemma in world politics, I can't write about it in the article, but I can upload a photoshopped image that quotes it? --

677:

Furthermore, I think it is inappropriate and a violation of NPOV to use real-life quotations for examples of logical fallacies, particularly if they are taken from only one party or POV.

3644:. Since "false choice" redirects here, the article needs a section to acknowledge falsely multivalent forms like that. In fact the existing "false choice" section could mention this. 2664:" "vote". I also recognize there would be too many on Knowledge doing this, therefore I said I won't lose time writing a section on the subject, therefore it's a moot point anyway. -- 961:

One explanation is that "false dilemma" is a technical term. This implies that its meaning does not directly correspond to the individual meanings of the terms "false" and "dilemma".

1991:

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.

1152:. While I'm not quite sure "You're either with us, or against us" needs an entire article devoted to the phrase, I do not believe the extra data in the article would merge well with 659:

to be with the "terrorists"). Unless it is impossible for the speaker to make this assumption and (rightfully or wrongfully) act on this assumption, this is not a good example of a

1525:

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,

1935:

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 ;)

782:

Hmm....did the Bush/Cheney administration give the impression that they were working under the false dilemma that people had to be tortured or we would suffer another attack? --

3547: 1994:

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.

2273:

On second thought, it probably wouldn't, but as it's just an image clearly defining the subject and exemplifying it this is a moot point anyway, and there are little to none

1729:

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?

2085:(2) It's not really a fallacy in logic, because it was never intended to be interpreted in this sense. It really means unreliable in one thing, unreliable in everything.-- 1415:

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

2982: 605:

Both posters above need to read the article. A "false dilemma" is a proposition which asserts that there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are more than two.

767:

There's no logical fallacy when saying "give me liberty or give me death!", same as there isn't when saying "give me chocolate or give me vanilla!". The speaker is just

2985:(otherwise known as the "navel-gazing" guideline). The only exception is if a large number of secondary sources discuss WP in the context of the article's topic (e.g. 147: 1576: 879:

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a true dilemma -- there are only two choices -- but it is paradoxical because there are seemingly logical arguments in favor of each choice.

3090:

supporting it. (It could be debated how valid the claim "tolerating x effectively supports it" is, but I don't think it can be dismissed as merely a false dilemma).

280:

on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

1515:

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.

2771:

while using the black and white colors portraying absolute evil and absolute good, is a very defining image for the subject." What part of this is contestable? --

2753:

To clarify, I'm not nitpicking about the text of the caption, I am specifically contesting the validity of the image as it relates to the subject of the page. --

2130:

editorship is an arbitrary grouping of characteristics that don't necessarily go together, resulting in a false dilemma. All in all, an apt and humorous image.

1429:

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?"

1856:). If an article needs a quick, readable definition of its subject, it should go in the lead. I think the first paragraph already covers everything it needs to. 1471:

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.)

1306:

but the 'choices' given by the parent are not really about doing homework, but rather about where the homework is being done, which wasn't a part of the debate.

1758:

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?

1325:

With someone with a dictionary or a regular encyclopedia please look up what they have on this? I tried an old American Heritage Dictionary, but to no avail.

1213:

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

3675: 2327:

there are a thousand other parties or currents you could adhere to without being either of those. In fact, someone may shop that (although it'd look a bit

317: 307: 725:

desegregation; it was instead that segregationism was not necessary for the preservation of capitalism and religious freedom incompatible with communism.

2641:

assumption that anyone who invokes WP:OR against you is just "butthurt" isn't helpful, and does not show you as being open to constructive discussion. --

1997:

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.

79: 1529:

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. —

1339: 2266:

difference to the reader. Also, the subject of the image is not about Knowledge, but about the false dilemma that incidentally happens on Knowledge.

2108: 3054:: what someone says for the reason of justifying his view, is labeled as "logical fallacy" despite the author's and his work's supporters protests: 922:

There are many terms for this fallacy. The technical term "false dilemma" is the one most commonly found in the reliable sources. For example, see:

471:

that encourage two-party systems do so by squeezing out minority parties. Voters avoid voting for minority parties in the belief that they would be

750:

Patrick Henry needed not be trained in formal logic to make such a bold, pithy statement. He said enough, and "Give me liberty or give me death!"

3558: 3293:

So the false dilemma can be that you are asked to choose between two options that are not in fact mutually exclusive. BTW got those examples from

1854:"It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples." 1571:

weighed up whether they should be kept imperfect or deleted. What are these standard flow charts? I haven't come across them. You could request a

1474: 802:

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?

2691:

the world. That article will probably not discuss each and every mountain in the picture, and definitely not in length. More example would be in

3685: 1351:. Merge them only if the consensus on other authoratative sources show that it is needed. However Knowledge should also reflect common usage. 1449: 1103: 1027: 621: 282: 85: 44: 3670: 3484: 2818: 1888: 1736: 1683: 3312: 2252: 2181: 1960: 1936: 1831:

I teach this subject, and so I know that many of my students have a great deal of difficulty grasping this concept. Thus the examples.

1478: 707: 3440:

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.) —

3690: 3538: 3520: 3250: 3215: 2137: 2050: 2004: 685: 572: 2295:

caption tells the reader nothing about the context of the two groups, and there's nothing in the article that puts it into context.

1899: 783: 593:'False dilemma' is a single term, and its meaning need not have to do with that of 'dilemma'. Just as one can commit the fallacy of 434: 384:(and given the facts about ice cores below, the blogger's accusation is true when we consider the temperature history of the Earth): 2469:

I am referring to the "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" Bush quote that's used as an example in the article.

1070:

So, in the examples, it seems arguable that the first 4 are "speech acts" because they express a policy. But, the last example, "

1628:

manner. Plus some viewers might vandalize, its better to mention religious details the least possible in non religious articles.

1178:

This obviously failed by virtue of everyone opposing it, and noone else having commented on it in 20 days. I removed the tags. --

272: 227: 3169:

issues is needed to clear things up, since most votes consist of "I don't think it's like that, but I'm not sure how or why". --

3680: 99: 30: 3338:

faced with a dilemma if you are neither or both. Anyway whether you call false dichotomy a dilemma or not - if you search for

2941:

You cast a very wide net with your non-specific RFC assertion and the arguments above covered a lot of ground. What specific

2208:

That image with Jesus does not seem to illustrate the subject properly or completely, but I guess it could fit in the article

3430:

I got my hand slapped recently for changing a redirect that was clearly sad legacy without posting on the talk page first.

104: 20: 168: 2834:

financial problems and people who appear poor actually are poor, Morton created a false dichotomy to justify his taxation.

524:

drawn from the voting system might be "You're either a Democrat or a Republican". (Or: either a liberal or a conservative)

3205: 1416: 397: 135: 74: 3632:

The love-hate article says "Individuals with BPD and NPD often fail to accomplish the task of ambivalence," and links to

3081:

says it is dividing users into two camps and ignoring those who are just "readers". But I see it as being about who you

202: 1367:

just brings up examples of False Dilemmas: "freedom vs security," "low prices vs high wages," "local vs organic," etc.

3555: 354: 232: 65: 3615: 2012: 1773:

I've shortened this example and tried to keep it to the point. If someone wanted to delete it, I would not object.

1618:

religions can be reduced to a collection of false dichotomies? All they consist of is the "this or that" discourse.

706:

Therefore: "Either you're with us or against us." most perfectly falls into the example category of this fallacy. --

506:

wasting your vote if you vote for a small party. With proportional representation, on the other hand, you don't. --

3201: 3032: 2899: 2336: 3174: 3149: 3114: 3063: 2797: 2776: 2743: 2700: 2669: 2628: 2593: 2535: 2501: 2460: 2423: 2374: 2359: 2344: 2282: 2217: 2199: 1923: 1881:

Under this section this sentence appears: "Of course the speaker does not believe..." Isn't this too assertive?

3409: 3357: 3308: 2822: 1740: 1453: 625: 129: 3488: 3189:

This was removed from the article twice, stating it is not an example because it references wikipedia itself?

1892: 1687: 2185: 1964: 1793:

The reasoning for 3 says that "the terms 'even' and 'odd' only apply to natural numbers.", not all integers.

1482: 711: 3219: 3051: 3028: 2256: 2141: 2008: 1940: 1572: 1179: 109: 2030: 1903: 787: 438: 3633: 3552: 3468:

https://en.wikipedia.org/False_dilemma#/media/File:Young_America's_dilemma_-_Dalrymple._LCCN2010651418.jpg

3434: 3246: 1836: 1778: 1498:

Ok. It's pretty funny that "shooting people in the face" links to Dick Cheney, but I'm still changing it.

689: 610: 576: 125: 3467: 819:

nearly-excluded middle ("buy/sell") with only the near-triviality of a middle, "hold" or "do nothing". --

3379: 3324: 2914: 2661: 2577: 2114:

Self-referencing and inappropriate? It's not even clear if or why it even represents a false dilemma. --

2090: 1763: 1586: 1380: 811: 208: 3242: 2331:, but anyway) and it'd be more accepted here, even if a Chinese or a Japanese probably wouldn't get it 854: 820: 758: 2026: 1364: 3238: 3170: 3145: 3110: 3059: 2814: 2793: 2772: 2739: 2696: 2665: 2624: 2589: 2531: 2497: 2456: 2419: 2370: 2355: 2340: 2278: 2233: 2213: 2195: 2133: 2000: 1919: 1884: 1732: 1679: 1445: 1420: 807: 430: 175: 3210:

Can someone please let me know why this is not relevant as an example? I already took a look at the

2879:

to include "Knowledge editors vs vandals" as an image to illustrate the concept of a false dilemma?

2835: 2069: 655:

to be true and act accordingly (i.e., if an entity does not show itself to be with "us", it will be

190: 3650: 3600: 3405: 3353: 3304: 3268: 2998: 2839: 2073: 1368: 1314: 1228: 1141: 1120: 863: 161: 55: 3542: 3015: 2986: 2965: 2884: 2862: 2758: 2646: 2613: 2516: 2482: 2440: 2397: 2308: 2170: 2162: 2119: 1864: 1849: 1821: 1812: 1794: 1512:

First, this is not the place to chat about global warming -- there are other web sites for that.

1352: 1281:

They seem to have only miniscule differences; not enough for them to each have their own article.

1157: 70: 3287:

Example - "Are you a dog lover or a cat lover?" - no reason why you can't be both (or neither).

3283:

Article doesn't mention the case of falsely assuming that the two options are mutually exclusive

3282: 1629: 2107: 3623: 3504: 3401: 2950: 2930: 2248: 1832: 1774: 1710: 1700: 1662: 1648: 1597: 1556: 1546: 1516: 1430: 966: 884: 606: 598: 264: 51: 3611: 3582: 3375: 3320: 3294: 3095: 2811:

Is this really a false dichotomy? If a person doesn't have liquid assets, s/he isn't rich.

2086: 2058: 1852:, and a "how to" section written in the third person is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia ( 1798: 1759: 1391: 1270: 1170: 1040: 935: 594: 3214:

article and it does not make it clear how what I did was wrong. I need some clarification!

141: 3578: 2724: 2269: 2251:. I came to this talk page because the image just struck me as not particularly relevant. 1619: 1099: 1058: 3466:

Yikes, I came to talk page after trying to understand how this figure is a false dilemma

3055: 3197: 3645: 3595: 3590: 3259: 3211: 2994: 2918: 2895: 1499: 1442:

And why on Earth should we not be able to include an example from a humorist?!?!?! ~~

1326: 1282: 1075: 484: 398:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

389: 346: 3664: 3586: 3043: 3011: 2961: 2880: 2859: 2754: 2642: 2638: 2609: 2605: 2553: 2512: 2478: 2436: 2393: 2304: 2166: 2159: 2115: 1860: 1817: 1239: 1153: 729: 669: 525: 468: 450: 24: 3339: 1676:

I came for information regarding logic, not politics. Please change the examples.

3619: 3516: 3500: 2946: 2942: 2926: 2922: 2910: 2876: 2573: 2545: 2473: 2407: 2389: 2237: 1611: 1218: 1133: 962: 899: 651:

rather than current fact. In this context, it is a condition that the speaker will

520:

Right, the voting system is arguably flawed, but where's the fallacy? A fallacious

461: 647:. When taken in context, this statement is usually made as part of a statement of 2277:

public domain images of the subject so it would hurt the article to remove it. --

1072:

Mitch Daniels stated, 'You're either for this bill or you're against our future,'

3571: 3452: 3441: 3091: 2855: 2686:

Most pictures on Knowledge are niche subjects/examples on the subject. Example:

2054: 1530: 1402: 1210: 1031: 831: 507: 2414:

vandals" help the understanding of this? Malicious next to "vandal" is akin to

1342: 1294: 1252: 1137: 1087: 1054: 939: 867: 866:? In this case one, and only one, choice of two is considered "rational". -- 277: 254: 2826: 2335:, but he'd get the idea. I'm asking leniency until something better appears. 3193: 3047: 3027:. Would it not be the very picture of a false dilemma, or a false dilemma? ( 2692: 2657: 2568: 2492: 1615: 1214: 948: 772: 449:

The false dilemma is also common in politics, especially in places like the

3290:

Or, "Are you left handed or right handed?" - ambidextrous people are both.

3204:

that has failed to make it on Knowledge, but has been permanently stuck on

2723:

assumed the creator of a false dilemma probably doesn't know he's making a

1004:

statement is evaluated as true or false, and this is a philosophers claim.

2268:

I agree that expanding the subject in length in the article would violate

732:)look like flawed dichotomies, but this one can be set up as a syllogism: 3477:

grounding at all, like "support our troops" vs "support a specific war".

3200:

all twisted into one package. Here is the link to the discussion on the

2687: 2415: 2392:, particularly when several much clearer examples are already present. -- 2328: 1107: 1102:. False dichotomy is an intellectual term used in university discourse. 1062: 483:

see this as the fallacy of the excluded middle, but I'm not convinced...

460:

Let's keep out the "especially in...US" thing pending evidence for it. --

3527: 1816:

So, all in all, I think this section should be deleted. Any comments? --

926:

Tomić, Taeda (November 2013). "False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition".

3166: 2585: 909: 895: 276:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to 3653: 3627: 3603: 3561: 3508: 3492: 3455: 3444: 3413: 3383: 3361: 3328: 3275: 3223: 3178: 3153: 3118: 3099: 3067: 3037: 3019: 3002: 2993:

article there is no justification ... it just looks unprofessional. --

2981:- It is very amateurish to include references to WP in articles. See 2969: 2954: 2934: 2904: 2888: 2865: 2843: 2801: 2780: 2762: 2747: 2704: 2673: 2650: 2632: 2617: 2597: 2559: 2539: 2520: 2505: 2486: 2464: 2444: 2427: 2401: 2378: 2363: 2348: 2312: 2286: 2260: 2241: 2221: 2203: 2189: 2174: 2145: 2123: 2094: 2077: 2062: 2034: 1968: 1944: 1927: 1907: 1868: 1840: 1825: 1802: 1782: 1767: 1744: 1713: 1703: 1691: 1665: 1651: 1632: 1622: 1600: 1589: 1559: 1549: 1533: 1519: 1502: 1486: 1457: 1433: 1423: 1405: 1394: 1383: 1371: 1355: 1329: 1317: 1297: 1285: 1273: 1255: 1242: 1231: 1221: 1182: 1173: 1160: 1144: 1123: 1110: 1090: 1078: 1065: 1061:

to the short article. It still needs to be improved, but not merged.--

1045: 970: 903: 887: 870: 857: 834: 823: 791: 775: 761: 715: 693: 629: 614: 580: 442: 3400:

Okay - could be it was merged away I wonder. I've had a look at the

1508:

The relationship between false dilemma and black and white thinking.

427:

taken SOME science classes and your screed indicates you have not.

248: 221: 3548:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 15 § Trifurcation

3077:. I'm not sure it is even a good example of a false dilemma. The 3545:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at 3162: 2212:. There's nowhere saying an article should only have one image. -- 846:

dichotomy" or one of the other terms should be the primary title.

1189:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1053:: I have added an alternative interpretation of the slogan as a 544:

will be wasted) on anything larger that a small-town election.

184: 15: 1269:

both are used in the same way and have the same definitions.

1140:. The articles should reference each other, but that's all. 2155:

Thanks for reminding me that I posted this question, though.

2106: 1987:

noise from excessively transmitting onto others' properties.

728:

Simple sayings such as "Give me liberty or give me death!" (

345: 1205:"Either/or fallacy" would successfully merge both articles 2925:

argument may be moot and just an exercise in debating.

3575: 3533: 2789: 2526:

fact, and it Fdoes not imply in any way that Knowledge

1026:

I have proposed to merge the relatively short article,

668:

assumptions, that doesn't mean they're fallacious."???

2608:

to get some feedback from other editors about this? --

641:"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" 160: 3541:

to determine whether its use and function meets the

2247:

This violates WP's self-reference style guideline :

2051:"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" "false dichotomy" 1789:

Examples for telling false dilemma form true dilemma

1195:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1016:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

328: 2983:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid 2158:Here's an image that gives a clearer illustration 390:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek 453:where there are only two major political parties. 3136:(amateuristic bolding and capsing here :) ) the 1955:Maybe both of you overread that this is about a 1010:The following discussion is an archived debate. 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 502:Actually, with the district voting system, you 3258:(Moved from the article onto the Talk page by 2584:something you claimed I said, is just another 1098:if anything, the article should be changed to 174: 8: 2410:"constructive contributors" and especially " 2049:=lie). Here's a couple mentions in passing: 1251:. I agree with PurplePlatypus as well. -- 325: 216: 3106:having been forced to support either side 1156:(specifically, the historical section). - 1261:Merge of false choice into false dilemma 589:alternatives are more or less negative! 3050:in general are the exact definition of 2738:least, if not impossible to contest. -- 2562:), — (continues after insertion below.) 983: 736:Despotic rule makes liberty impossible. 218: 188: 3640:option dressed up as a choice between 3426:Poor black and white thinking redirect 2767:"the directness of asking a reader to 286:about philosophy content on Knowledge. 746:Despotic rule makes life meaningless. 741:Without liberty, life is meaningless. 7: 3462:Example image is not a false dilema? 2013:_Incomplete_example_of_NY_Bars": --> 1293:See all above. They are very alike. 1104:You're either with us, or against us 1028:You're either with us, or against us 703:or not they are intelligible, clear. 270:This article is within the scope of 2656:like Knowledge discussed as having 2082:(1) It's irrelevant to the article. 1850:Knowledge is not a student textbook 953:Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3676:Mid-importance Philosophy articles 3567:Debatably related "see also" links 2406:Just out of curiosity, how do the 1596:is obviously bad", "Therefore B". 798:"The Opposite" Episode of Seinfeld 14: 1754:"Schools should teach both sides" 3526: 3161:: I think an unbiased expert in 2945:point are you concerned about? 2854:The "See also" section links to 2792:a nice arrangement you did :) -- 2020:Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus 1217:link already describing a book. 1209:Hi all, this link is now on the 643:as an illustrative example of a 292:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy 257: 247: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3551:until a consensus is reached. 3192:A very good example of a False 2544:If you don't think it would be 2161:, although it might be open to 1379:The two terms are synonymous. - 312:This article has been rated as 295:Template:WikiProject Philosophy 3654:16:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 3628:15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 3604:14:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 3185:Elliott Argument as an Example 2298:Presumably there's nothing we 1704:12:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 1692:22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 1330:01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1318:06:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 1238:definitely be kept separate.-- 835:15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 3686:Mid-importance logic articles 3295:False Dichotomy (movie trope) 3276:09:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 3224:16:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC) 3179:14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 3154:14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 3119:14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 3100:10:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 3068:14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 3038:18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 2674:14:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 2651:14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 2633:17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 2598:17:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 2491:Maybe, but "Image describing 1978:Incomplete example of NY Bars 1928:22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 1811:This is also in violation of 1783:16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 1768:19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 1601:14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 1590:07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC) 1458:01:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 1417:Knowledge:No personal attacks 1384:22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 776:19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 694:21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 581:21:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 42:Put new text under old text. 3509:08:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 3493:18:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC) 2917:in that it clearly violates 2871:RfC: Knowledge example image 2124:19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 2035:03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 1859:I've removed the section. -- 1745:13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 1633:16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1395:16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 1372:19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 1356:02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) 824:14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 762:14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3671:C-Class Philosophy articles 3020:23:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 3003:15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) 2970:08:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 2955:01:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 2935:01:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 2905:01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC) 2889:22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2844:09:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC) 2802:17:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2781:18:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2763:18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2748:17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2705:17:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2618:18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2560:18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2540:17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2521:12:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2506:09:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2487:22:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 2465:22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 2445:18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 2428:09:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC) 2402:18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC) 2379:23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC) 2364:23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC) 2354:those that don't care?" -- 2349:23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC) 2313:16:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 2078:10:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC) 2014:20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC) 1895:) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 1714:12:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1298:18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 1286:14:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 1274:03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 1183:05:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 639:It is confusing to include 597:without actually pleading. 475:, and instead vote for the 443:23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3707: 3562:22:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC) 2604:Do you mind if I raise an 2323:it's a false dilemma. You 2190:18:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC) 2063:02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 1969:01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 1945:12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 1908:22:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 1666:17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 1661:Thank you, 90.241.29.99 . 1652:12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1560:12:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1434:12:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC) 1256:01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1174:02:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 871:01:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 858:12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 841:"Dilemma" not correct word 792:02:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 716:01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 615:12:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 318:project's importance scale 3691:Logic task force articles 3438:actually defines the term 3414:13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3384:12:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3362:10:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3329:05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3313:00:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3256:10:26, 24 February 2013‎ 3206:Mrfivethirty's Talk page! 2337:It's better than nothing. 2287:18:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 2175:15:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 2146:11:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 2103:Knowledge vandalism image 1869:15:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1841:14:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 1826:23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 1623:11:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) 1550:16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 1520:12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1424:14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 1406:00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 1243:00:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 1232:09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1145:09:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1124:09:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1111:22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 990:Was that a false dilemma? 940:10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0 630:11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 353: 324: 311: 242: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3539:redirects for discussion 3521:Redirects for discussion 3456:17:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 3445:17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 2866:21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2827:17:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 2261:17:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2242:15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 2222:15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 2204:15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 2095:10:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC) 1803:03:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 1534:17:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC) 1503:03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 1222:19:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1192:Please do not modify it. 1161:07:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 1091:14:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1079:16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC) 1066:18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 1046:15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 1013:Please do not modify it. 971:08:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC) 904:20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) 888:14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 814:15:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) 672:16:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 528:16:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3202:Deletion of the Article 3052:The Treachery of Images 3029:The Treachery of Images 1877:There is no alternative 1487:23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1411:Stephen Colbert example 771:for one of two things. 601:13:37, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) 329:Associated task forces: 3681:C-Class logic articles 3634:Splitting (psychology) 3616:Love–hate relationship 3435:Splitting (psychology) 2979:Remove reference to WP 2472:If it's inappropriate 2111: 1989: 350: 273:WikiProject Philosophy 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 3433:So here's the deal. 3342:you also end up here. 2915:User:Machine Elf 1735 2913:, however, I support 2110: 1981: 1527:people really believe 1477:comment was added by 349: 100:Neutral point of view 3229:False choice example 2806: 1610:Can it be said that 1467:Dead References Link 635:Example is confusing 105:No original research 3543:redirect guidelines 3537:has been listed at 1977:False choice -: --> 1643:way you're facing. 1579:they are unhelpful. 298:Philosophy articles 3319:classifications.-- 2989:article). But in 2987:Essjay controversy 2909:The RfC was about 2408:purple expressions 2112: 1722:both sides overlap 864:Prisoner's Dilemma 473:wasting their vote 351: 283:general discussion 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3402:List_of_fallacies 3279: 3255: 3241:comment added by 2877:original research 2817:comment added by 2564: 2383:You are assuming 2136:comment added by 2003:comment added by 1913:Proposed deletion 1896: 1887:comment added by 1747: 1735:comment added by 1694: 1682:comment added by 1490: 1448:comment added by 1345:22 September 2006 947:Dowden, Bradley. 806:I think that's a 477:best of two evils 433:comment added by 372: 371: 368: 367: 364: 363: 360: 359: 265:Philosophy portal 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3698: 3648: 3612:One-party system 3598: 3536: 3530: 3273: 3272: 3266: 3265: 3257: 3254: 3235: 3138:Discussion Above 3035: 2902: 2894:Better to avoid 2829: 2563: 2556: 2550: 2148: 2016: 1882: 1730: 1677: 1587:Grumpyyoungman01 1494:Shot in the face 1472: 1460: 1381:UK-Logician-2006 1194: 1038: 1015: 991: 988: 956: 943: 595:special pleading 445: 336: 326: 300: 299: 296: 293: 290: 267: 262: 261: 260: 251: 244: 243: 238: 235: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3706: 3705: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3661: 3660: 3646: 3596: 3579:Attention theft 3574:added and then 3569: 3532: 3524: 3464: 3428: 3340:false dichotomy 3285: 3270: 3269: 3261: 3260: 3236: 3231: 3187: 3171:Anime Addict AA 3146:Anime Addict AA 3111:Anime Addict AA 3060:Anime Addict AA 3033: 2900: 2873: 2852: 2812: 2809: 2725:logical fallacy 2666:Anime Addict AA 2662:I don't like it 2554: 2551: 2319:meanings), you 2131: 2105: 2022: 1998: 1980: 1915: 1879: 1791: 1756: 1724: 1673: 1659: 1640: 1608: 1542: 1510: 1496: 1473:—The preceding 1469: 1450:213.103.214.215 1443: 1413: 1263: 1207: 1199: 1190: 1100:False dichotomy 1059:logical fallacy 1032: 1024: 1011: 1001: 996: 995: 994: 989: 985: 946: 925: 862:What about the 843: 800: 637: 622:177.207.110.147 428: 377: 334: 297: 294: 291: 288: 287: 263: 258: 256: 236: 230: 201:on Knowledge's 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3704: 3702: 3694: 3693: 3688: 3683: 3678: 3673: 3663: 3662: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3591:Trick question 3568: 3565: 3523: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3485:49.216.226.235 3463: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3332: 3331: 3284: 3281: 3230: 3227: 3186: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3156: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3022: 3005: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2872: 2869: 2851: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2819:122.107.118.20 2808: 2807:Moreton's Fork 2805: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2576:(to be read: " 2470: 2450:don't find it 2432: 2431: 2430: 2366: 2351: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2206: 2192: 2165:objections. -- 2156: 2153: 2104: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2083: 2065: 2021: 2018: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1914: 1911: 1889:130.225.73.242 1878: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1857: 1844: 1843: 1815: 1810: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1737:213.249.229.58 1723: 1720: 1718: 1696: 1695: 1684:216.173.192.26 1672: 1669: 1658: 1655: 1639: 1636: 1607: 1604: 1593: 1592: 1581: 1580: 1567: 1566: 1541: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1509: 1506: 1495: 1492: 1468: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1437: 1436: 1412: 1409: 1398: 1397: 1386: 1374: 1365:"false choice" 1358: 1346: 1333: 1332: 1320: 1315:PurplePlatypus 1307: 1300: 1288: 1276: 1262: 1259: 1235: 1234: 1229:PurplePlatypus 1206: 1203: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1142:PurplePlatypus 1127: 1126: 1121:PurplePlatypus 1023: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1006: 1000: 997: 993: 992: 982: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 959: 958: 957: 944: 934:(4): 347–368. 917: 916: 915: 914: 842: 839: 838: 837: 816: 815: 799: 796: 795: 794: 779: 778: 748: 747: 743: 742: 738: 737: 719: 718: 704: 699: 698: 697: 696: 674: 673: 636: 633: 603: 602: 585: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 513: 512: 511: 510: 497: 496: 495: 494: 488: 487: 479:. I guess you 469:voting systems 455: 454: 424: 423: 422: 421: 417: 414: 411: 407: 404: 400: 393: 385: 376: 373: 370: 369: 366: 365: 362: 361: 358: 357: 352: 342: 341: 339: 337: 331: 330: 322: 321: 314:Mid-importance 310: 304: 303: 301: 269: 268: 252: 240: 239: 237:Mid‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3703: 3692: 3689: 3687: 3684: 3682: 3679: 3677: 3674: 3672: 3669: 3668: 3666: 3655: 3652: 3649: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3602: 3599: 3592: 3588: 3587:Narrowcasting 3584: 3583:Mise-en-scène 3580: 3577: 3573: 3566: 3564: 3563: 3560: 3557: 3554: 3550: 3549: 3544: 3540: 3535: 3531:The redirect 3529: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3461: 3457: 3454: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3443: 3439: 3436: 3431: 3425: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3406:Robert Walker 3403: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3354:Robert Walker 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3341: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3305:Robert Walker 3302: 3298: 3296: 3291: 3288: 3280: 3277: 3274: 3267: 3264: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3228: 3226: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3208: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3198:Morton's Fork 3195: 3190: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3157: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3056:Word of Dante 3053: 3049: 3045: 3044:false dilemma 3041: 3040: 3039: 3036: 3030: 3026: 3023: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3006: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2903: 2897: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2870: 2868: 2867: 2864: 2861: 2857: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2736: 2731: 2726: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2689: 2685: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2660:, is, well, " 2659: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2547: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2475: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2453: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2367: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2352: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2301: 2296: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2271: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253:129.67.86.189 2250: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182:80.101.97.103 2178: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2109: 2102: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2019: 2017: 2015: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1995: 1992: 1988: 1985: 1976: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1961:91.67.195.203 1958: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937:84.16.123.194 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1912: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1876: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1814: 1806: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1753: 1751: 1748: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1727: 1721: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1706: 1705: 1702: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1656: 1654: 1653: 1650: 1644: 1637: 1635: 1634: 1631: 1625: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1605: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1591: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1577:my experience 1574: 1573:third opinion 1569: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1558: 1552: 1551: 1548: 1539: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1518: 1513: 1507: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1493: 1491: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1479:216.112.5.246 1476: 1466: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1410: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1396: 1393: 1390: 1387: 1385: 1382: 1378: 1375: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1357: 1354: 1353:Alan Liefting 1350: 1347: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1316: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1301: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1289: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1277: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1245: 1244: 1241: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1204: 1202: 1196: 1193: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1158:Markusbradley 1155: 1154:False dilemma 1151: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1125: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1057:instead of a 1056: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1037: 1036: 1029: 1022:Propose merge 1021: 1017: 1014: 1008: 1007: 1005: 998: 987: 984: 980: 972: 968: 964: 960: 954: 950: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 928:Argumentation 924: 923: 921: 920: 919: 918: 911: 907: 906: 905: 901: 897: 892: 891: 890: 889: 886: 880: 877: 873: 872: 869: 865: 860: 859: 856: 850: 847: 840: 836: 833: 828: 827: 826: 825: 822: 813: 812:69.211.104.41 809: 805: 804: 803: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 780: 777: 774: 770: 766: 765: 764: 763: 760: 755: 751: 745: 744: 740: 739: 735: 734: 733: 731: 730:Patrick Henry 726: 722: 717: 713: 709: 708:91.67.195.203 705: 701: 700: 695: 691: 687: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 671: 666: 665: 664: 662: 661:false dilemma 658: 654: 650: 646: 645:false dilemma 642: 634: 632: 631: 627: 623: 617: 616: 612: 608: 600: 596: 592: 591: 590: 586: 583: 582: 578: 574: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 527: 523: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 509: 505: 501: 500: 499: 498: 492: 491: 490: 489: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 465: 464: 463: 458: 452: 451:United States 448: 447: 446: 444: 440: 436: 432: 418: 415: 412: 408: 405: 401: 399: 394: 391: 386: 382: 381: 379: 378: 374: 356: 348: 344: 343: 340: 338: 333: 332: 327: 323: 319: 315: 309: 306: 305: 302: 285: 284: 279: 275: 274: 266: 255: 253: 250: 246: 245: 241: 234: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 25:False dilemma 22: 18: 17: 3641: 3637: 3570: 3546: 3534:Trifurcation 3525: 3519:" listed at 3517:Trifurcation 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3465: 3437: 3432: 3429: 3303: 3299: 3292: 3289: 3286: 3262: 3243:173.73.94.13 3237:— Preceding 3232: 3216:69.27.67.210 3209: 3191: 3188: 3158: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3105: 3087: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3058:prevails. -- 3034:Machine Elf 3024: 3007: 2990: 2978: 2901:Machine Elf 2898:references.— 2874: 2853: 2813:— Preceding 2810: 2787: 2768: 2734: 2729: 2721: 2581: 2527: 2451: 2411: 2384: 2332: 2324: 2320: 2299: 2297: 2293: 2274: 2267: 2230: 2209: 2138:59.93.218.82 2113: 2046: 2042: 2023: 2005:84.57.106.33 1996: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1956: 1920:Bjørn Clasen 1916: 1880: 1853: 1833:Rick Norwood 1809:the article. 1807: 1792: 1775:Rick Norwood 1757: 1749: 1728: 1725: 1717: 1711:Rick Norwood 1707: 1701:Rick Norwood 1697: 1663:Rick Norwood 1660: 1649:Rick Norwood 1645: 1641: 1626: 1612:monotheistic 1609: 1598:Rick Norwood 1594: 1557:Rick Norwood 1553: 1547:Rick Norwood 1543: 1526: 1517:Rick Norwood 1514: 1511: 1497: 1470: 1431:Rick Norwood 1414: 1399: 1388: 1376: 1360: 1348: 1336: 1322: 1309: 1302: 1290: 1278: 1266: 1248: 1246: 1236: 1208: 1200: 1191: 1188: 1177: 1165: 1164: 1149: 1148: 1134:Ford Contour 1129: 1128: 1116: 1095: 1094: 1083: 1082: 1071: 1069: 1050: 1049: 1041: 1034: 1033: 1025: 1012: 1009: 1002: 986: 978: 952: 931: 927: 885:Rick Norwood 881: 878: 874: 861: 855:66.231.41.57 851: 848: 844: 821:66.231.41.57 817: 808:Non sequitur 801: 768: 759:66.231.41.57 756: 752: 749: 727: 723: 720: 686:75.84.238.18 675: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 638: 618: 607:Rick Norwood 604: 599:Andre Engels 587: 584: 573:75.84.238.18 571: 521: 503: 480: 476: 472: 459: 456: 425: 313: 281: 271: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3572:User:Lau737 3376:Jack Upland 3321:Jack Upland 3042:However, a 2856:Nolan chart 2850:Nolan chart 2637:Making the 2163:WP:COATRACK 2132:—Preceding 2087:Jack Upland 2027:silentcelle 1999:—Preceding 1900:190.43.37.7 1883:—Preceding 1813:WP:NOTGUIDE 1760:Methychroma 1731:—Preceding 1678:—Preceding 1671:new comment 1606:Monotheism? 1444:—Preceding 1392:Ewlyahoocom 1340:Ask Google. 1271:Somerset219 1211:anti-Mormon 1171:Somerset219 949:"Fallacies" 784:94.195.20.3 435:64.83.4.178 429:—Preceding 148:free images 31:not a forum 3665:Categories 3647:Card Zero 3597:Card Zero 2249:WP:SELFREF 1620:Le Anh-Huy 1421:Stoneice02 1180:Kevin_b_er 1138:Automobile 1106:, is not. 1055:speech act 913:separated. 522:conclusion 289:Philosophy 278:philosophy 228:Philosophy 3263:Lova Falk 3194:Dichotomy 3088:in effect 3048:fallacies 2995:Noleander 2860:Gyrofrog 2836:Milhisfan 2730:Knowledge 2693:lightning 2658:fallacies 2639:bad faith 2569:Straw man 2567:Using an 2493:Knowledge 2412:malicious 2070:Milhisfan 1616:Abrahamic 1575:, but in 1565:Hi there, 1500:StuIsCool 1327:Tuesday42 1283:Tuesday42 1215:either/or 1076:JJLatWiki 999:The Claim 562:problems. 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3576:re-added 3556:1234qwer 3553:1234qwer 3251:contribs 3239:unsigned 3012:FormerIP 2962:McGeddon 2881:McGeddon 2815:unsigned 2755:McGeddon 2688:Mountain 2643:McGeddon 2610:McGeddon 2578:butthurt 2555:McGeddon 2513:McGeddon 2479:McGeddon 2437:McGeddon 2416:pleonasm 2394:McGeddon 2333:entirely 2329:strawman 2305:McGeddon 2275:fair-use 2270:WP:UNDUE 2167:FormerIP 2134:unsigned 2116:FormerIP 2001:unsigned 1885:unsigned 1861:McGeddon 1818:Lewis512 1733:unsigned 1680:unsigned 1657:spelling 1638:examples 1540:diagrams 1475:unsigned 1446:unsigned 1369:jthillik 1240:Will3935 1030:, here. 670:Aragorn2 526:Aragorn2 431:unsigned 375:Examples 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3620:Phlsph7 3501:Phlsph7 3212:WP:SELF 3167:fallacy 3159:Comment 3140:before 3083:support 3079:caption 2921:so the 2919:WP:SELF 2896:WP:SELF 2586:fallacy 2045:=liar, 1957:fallacy 1805:s_s_s7 1349:Comment 1323:Comment 1310:Against 1303:Against 1219:Anon166 1117:Comment 1063:Niels Ø 963:Phlsph7 849:...... 657:assumed 462:Ed Poor 316:on the 199:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3651:(talk) 3601:(talk) 3589:, and 3453:MaxEnt 3442:MaxEnt 3142:Voting 3104:Isn't 3092:Wardog 3075:Remove 3025:Remove 3008:Remove 2947:Veriss 2927:Veriss 2875:Is it 2863:(talk) 2790:that's 2055:Mrwojo 2047:falsum 2043:falsus 1795:S s s7 1531:MaxEnt 1403:Merzul 1249:Oppose 1166:Oppose 1150:Oppose 1130:Oppose 1096:Oppose 1084:Oppose 1051:Oppose 1035:bd2412 908:Hello 832:BennyD 769:asking 653:assume 649:policy 508:Mrdice 485:Martin 467:Well, 205:scale. 126:Google 3163:logic 2943:WP:OR 2923:WP:OR 2911:WP:OR 2788:Hey, 2769:chose 2735:chose 2574:WP:OR 2546:WP:OR 2474:WP:OR 2390:WP:OR 1630:Bvazq 1343:Scaro 1295:Hezzy 1253:Tmchk 1136:with 1088:Tokek 979:Notes 868:Tmchk 481:could 355:Logic 233:Logic 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3642:many 3624:talk 3614:and 3505:talk 3489:talk 3410:talk 3380:talk 3358:talk 3325:talk 3309:talk 3271:talk 3247:talk 3220:talk 3196:and 3175:talk 3165:and 3150:talk 3144:. -- 3134:Read 3130:Note 3128:and 3126:Keep 3115:talk 3096:talk 3064:talk 3046:and 3016:talk 2999:talk 2991:this 2966:talk 2951:talk 2931:talk 2885:talk 2840:talk 2823:talk 2798:talk 2777:talk 2759:talk 2744:talk 2701:talk 2670:talk 2647:talk 2629:talk 2614:talk 2594:talk 2588:. -- 2536:talk 2517:talk 2502:talk 2483:talk 2461:talk 2452:that 2441:talk 2424:talk 2418:. -- 2398:talk 2375:talk 2360:talk 2345:talk 2325:know 2321:know 2309:talk 2283:talk 2257:talk 2238:talk 2218:talk 2200:talk 2186:talk 2171:talk 2142:talk 2120:talk 2091:talk 2074:talk 2059:talk 2031:talk 2009:talk 1965:talk 1941:talk 1924:talk 1918:it. 1904:talk 1893:talk 1865:talk 1837:talk 1822:talk 1799:talk 1779:talk 1764:talk 1741:talk 1688:talk 1483:talk 1454:talk 967:talk 900:talk 788:talk 773:Itub 712:talk 690:talk 626:talk 611:talk 577:talk 439:talk 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3638:one 3297:. 3132:to 2606:RFC 2385:far 2300:can 2210:too 2053:. — 1614:or 1389:For 1377:For 1361:For 1337:For 1291:For 1279:For 1267:For 1108:MPS 936:doi 504:are 308:Mid 176:TWL 3667:: 3626:) 3618:. 3585:, 3581:, 3507:) 3491:) 3412:) 3382:) 3360:) 3327:) 3311:) 3253:) 3249:• 3222:) 3177:) 3152:) 3117:) 3109:-- 3098:) 3066:) 3031:)— 3018:) 3001:) 2968:) 2953:) 2933:) 2887:) 2842:) 2825:) 2800:) 2794:AA 2779:) 2773:AA 2761:) 2746:) 2740:AA 2703:) 2697:AA 2672:) 2649:) 2631:) 2625:AA 2623:-- 2616:) 2596:) 2590:AA 2582:do 2552:— 2538:) 2532:AA 2528:is 2519:) 2504:) 2498:AA 2485:) 2477:-- 2463:) 2457:AA 2443:) 2435:-- 2426:) 2420:AA 2400:) 2377:) 2371:AA 2369:-- 2362:) 2356:AA 2347:) 2341:AA 2339:-- 2311:) 2285:) 2279:AA 2259:) 2240:) 2234:AA 2220:) 2214:AA 2202:) 2196:AA 2188:) 2173:) 2144:) 2122:) 2093:) 2076:) 2061:) 2033:) 2011:) 1967:) 1943:) 1926:) 1906:) 1867:) 1839:) 1824:) 1801:) 1781:) 1766:) 1743:) 1690:) 1485:) 1456:) 1401:-- 1247:I 969:) 951:. 932:27 930:. 910:Rp 902:) 896:Rp 830:-- 810:-- 790:) 757:-- 714:) 692:) 663:. 628:) 613:) 579:) 441:) 335:/ 231:: 156:) 54:; 3622:( 3559:4 3515:" 3503:( 3487:( 3408:( 3378:( 3356:( 3323:( 3307:( 3278:) 3245:( 3218:( 3173:( 3148:( 3113:( 3094:( 3062:( 3014:( 2997:( 2964:( 2949:( 2929:( 2883:( 2838:( 2821:( 2796:( 2775:( 2757:( 2742:( 2699:( 2668:( 2645:( 2627:( 2612:( 2592:( 2558:( 2534:( 2515:( 2500:( 2481:( 2459:( 2439:( 2422:( 2396:( 2373:( 2358:( 2343:( 2307:( 2281:( 2255:( 2236:( 2216:( 2198:( 2184:( 2169:( 2140:( 2118:( 2089:( 2072:( 2057:( 2029:( 2007:( 1963:( 1939:( 1922:( 1902:( 1891:( 1863:( 1835:( 1820:( 1797:( 1777:( 1762:( 1739:( 1686:( 1489:. 1481:( 1452:( 1042:T 965:( 955:. 942:. 938:: 898:( 786:( 710:( 688:( 624:( 609:( 575:( 437:( 388:( 320:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index