I these right wing news people that imply or even out right say that if you were aginst the U.S. going to war in Iraqi. You are in favor of Saddam Hussinein or pro terrorest. Isn’t that some kind of fallacy we should avoid.
Wrong forum, zipper…
Would we call that “begging the question”?
Or maybe false dichotomy.
Sorry about wrong forum I wasn’t sure which one. Igessed wrong.
Perhaps the excluded middle has something to contribute to this.
Well, I see the argument constructed thusly:
A. People who are against the war support Saddam Hussein.
B. Bob is against the war.
C. Bob supports Saddam Hussein.
There is a fallacy of presumption here, namely that premise A excludes all possible reasons for being against the war besides supporting Saddam Hussein. There are people, for example, who do not support Saddam Hussein but would prefer diplomatic action or trade sanctions to war. Such an argument could be classified under false dilemma. The choice offered is between supporting the war and being against Saddam, or opposing the war and being for Saddam. However, it is clear that in reality, you are not limited to those two choices.
I like to call it “fallacy of the excluded middle”: You are all the way pro-war or all the way pro-Saddam, with no middle ground possible.
IOW, “You’re with us or you’re against us!”
And this is the correct forum, as this is a discussion of logical fallacies, not the war itself. (Strong hint, hint.)
—I like to call it “fallacy of the excluded middle”: You are all the way pro-war or all the way pro-Saddam, with no middle ground possible.—
The excluded middle isn’t a fallacy, it’s a logical principle. What you are talking about is a MISUSE of that principle.
Apos, the misuse is the fallacy. Hence “fallacy of the excluded middle.”
Is “excluded middle” the same as a false dichotomy? A false dichotomy is when you try to treat an issue as black-and-white when it’s really shades of grey.
Zipper, it’s unfair to categorize any group of people because of what a few pompous TV hosts spew out for ratings.
You can be a right winger and not feel that way. Obviously, such extreme stagements are for ratings/attention.
Think of some of the bozo left wingers and some of the embarrassing things they’ve said. I don’t see all liberals in the same light as some of the most loud mouthed bashers that get the press.
(oh, this all belongs in Great Debates and will be moved)
This is the right forum because we are discussing logic, not arguing politics. The only debatable point I see is whether or not the two alternatives (you are in favor of the war or you are in favor of Saddam) are really exhaustive. If anyone really wants to argue about that, then it should be done in GD.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
What you have shown above is not necessarily a fallacy if by “People who” you actually mean “all people who”. If that is what is meant, then the above syllogism is not fallacious. It may be wrong, but not because it is fallacious.
Logic is GIGO.
Not exactly. One can have a false dilemma that is not a fallacious excluded middle. There is a valid use of the excluded middle. This is when one actually has a system whereing it is structurally not possible for there to be an answer that is neither completely true nor completely false. One has an “excluded middle”. For example, digital binary computing is an excluded middle system. It is not a fallacy. It is very valid to say that a bit is either 1 or 0 in such a system.
Now, a fallacious excluded middle is a type of false dilemma, wherein one attempts to falsely claim that there is no state that is neither completely true nor completely false. But you can see that this is still not any and all possible types of false dilemmas.
The false dilemma that “You either support the war or you support Saddam Hussein” is one such false dilemma that is not an excluded middle. This is because it is not a statement that presumes an alternative is the “false” (the negation) of the “true”. Instead, it posits that there are two true states:
Support the war.
Support Saddam Hussein.
And then it posits that these are the only alternatives. Hence, the false dilemma.
A fallacious excluded middle would be: If you do not support the war then you must oppose it. In other words, it excludes the middle ground of being uncertain. However, it does not go further than this.
Thus, the thinking is a false dilemma but not a fallacious excluded middle.
You might note that I have been using the term “false dilemma” instead of “false dichotomy”. This is because “dilemma” better describes this sort of situation than does “dichotomy”. Something can be a dichotomy without implying a choice. A dilemma is always some kind of choice.
The law of excluded middle states that for any proposition, either it or its contradiction is true; for any proposition P, either P or not P. It becomes a fallacy when it’s applied to situations which are not bivalent. Bivalent refers to two-value (true/false) logic.