Difference between revisions of "False dilemma"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (category: rhetorical deceptions -> logical fallacies)
m (b&w, either-or)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
* "You're either with me, or you're against me." (Or, more mildly, "You're either with us, or you aren't.")
 
* "You're either with me, or you're against me." (Or, more mildly, "You're either with us, or you aren't.")
 
* "You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem."
 
* "You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem."
* All-or-nothing thinking (a recognized form of [[Wikipedia:cognitive distortion|cognitive distortion]] in [[Wikipedia:cognitive therapy|cognitive therapy]])
+
* All-or-nothing thinking (a recognized form of [[Wikipedia:cognitive distortion|cognitive distortion]] in [[Wikipedia:cognitive therapy|cognitive therapy]]), also known as black-and-white thinking
 +
* either-or dichotomy
  
 
This is related to the [[rhetorical technique]] of [[choice between extremes]], where any other options may have actually been ''made unavailable'', rather than simply being ignored or dismissed by the arguer.
 
This is related to the [[rhetorical technique]] of [[choice between extremes]], where any other options may have actually been ''made unavailable'', rather than simply being ignored or dismissed by the arguer.
 
==Reference==
 
==Reference==
 
* {{Wikipedia|false dilemma}}
 
* {{Wikipedia|false dilemma}}

Revision as of 17:13, 23 January 2006

A false dilemma is an argument "in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options" (W) when in fact other options are available.

This fallacy comes in several flavors:

  • "You're either with me, or you're against me." (Or, more mildly, "You're either with us, or you aren't.")
  • "You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem."
  • All-or-nothing thinking (a recognized form of cognitive distortion in cognitive therapy), also known as black-and-white thinking
  • either-or dichotomy

This is related to the rhetorical technique of choice between extremes, where any other options may have actually been made unavailable, rather than simply being ignored or dismissed by the arguer.

Reference