Anyone who doesn’t take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
Albert Einstein
The fallacy of bifurcation is also known as the black-and-white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when the arguer presents the listener with only two choices (hence the prefix bi), when in fact there are other possibilities to choose from. In other words, the argument limits the options of choices, omitting possible alternatives. The fallacy of bifurcation usually takes the following form:
Premise: There are only two options: x and y.
Conclusion: Option x is false, therefore option y must be true.
We can see clearly that, if there were indeed only two options, the argument would be valid. The fallacy occurs when the argument concerns factual human categories rather than merely logical symbols. For example:
1. You are either a Republican or a Democrat. You are not a Republican, so you must be a Democrat.
In this example only two political parties are presented in the premise, when in reality there are many others that should be considered: Green, Communist, Independent, etc. The fallacy of bifurcation can also be found in loaded questions or assertions, which, in themselves, are not arguments. For example:
2. Are you an agnostic or an atheist?
3. There are only two types of people in this country: those who love America and those who hate it.
4. You are either with us or against us.
In all of these examples the options are limited. This fallacy is commonly used by politicians in order to manipulate people. We often hear of “good versus evil” and “pro-war versus anti-war,” when in fact there are other positions that need to be considered. The fallacy of bifurcation is always an oversimplification of a more complex issue.
Like the fallacy of bifurcation, the false dilemma erroneously limits options. In fact, the bifurcation is a type of false dilemma. However, whereas the bifurcation limits the choices to only two, this fallacy limits the options to three or more when, in reality, there are other alternatives that should be considered. For example:
1. A menu reads: “We have meals for all diets: vegetarian, vegan, and meat eaters.”
In this example, the options are limited to three, when in fact there are more types of diets than these. Some people follow religious dietary guidelines; some cannot eat gluten products; some only eat organic foods.
Here is a very different example of the false dilemma:
2. Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
This example is a common argument for the divinity of Christ. However, this statement limits the choices, when there are other possibilities that should be considered. One alternate possibility, according to Muslims, is that Jesus was a prophet. Another alternative—albeit unlikely—is that Jesus never existed. In any case, all possibilities should be considered in an honest and open manner.
Here are some final examples of the false dilemma:
3. College students are either working toward an Associate’s Degree, a Bachelor’s Degree, or a Master’s Degree.
4. Are you a size small, medium, or large?
5. Professor to students: Do you believe in Creationism, Evolutionary Theory, or Intelligent Design?
We should be aware of the false dilemma fallacy. One way to do this is by remembering that people, places, and events are often more complex than they seem.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is Latin for “argument from ignorance.” This is an argument that uses a lack of proof or evidence to convince the listener that the subject in question cannot be taken seriously or should be discounted completely. Often the lack of proof or evidence is meant to imply a refutation.
The structure of this argument takes the following form:
Premise: There is no evidence or proof for x.
Conclusion: x is false; x should be dismissed; or, x has been refuted.
The argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is quite common in religious discussions. Consider this example:
1. The existence of God has never been disproved. Therefore, God must exist.
One of the serious problems with the ad ignorantiam fallacy is that in many cases its opposite can be argued in the same manner. For example:
2. The existence of God has never been proven. Therefore, God does not exist.
Simply because there is not verifiable evidence that a certain thing exists, this does not mean that its existence should be dismissed or not taken seriously. More importantly, we must remember that a lack of proof is not a refutation.
Here are three final examples:
3. Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice.
4. There is no proof that extraterrestrials exist. Therefore, they must be figments of our imagination.
5. Since we have no physical evidence supporting the claim that Socrates was a real person, he must have never existed.
Here we see a lack of evidence is used to dismiss the issue at hand. In some cases, this lack of proof is used to argue for the opposing position. When we encounter little or no evidence in support of an assertion or claim, we should be honest with ourselves instead of jumping to hasty conclusions. It is far better to admit that we do not have all the information needed to make an informed judgment, than to make arguments from ignorance.
Shifting the burden of proof is usually used as a response to a particular argument. It is a type of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This is an argument that maintains that because one cannot defend one’s position, it must be incorrect or false. For example:
1. Lawyer: My client did not rob the bank last Friday. Prove that he did!
In this example, the lawyer rests his argument on the sole basis that his client cannot be proven guilty. However, as is the case with the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the lack of evidence in no way acts as a refutation of the argument’s claim.
Consider these examples:
2. Brian: The CIA is in charge of cocaine distribution in the United States.
Alex: That is crazy!
Brian: Prove that it isn’t so!
3. Preacher: God wants everyone to donate money to my ministry.
Congregant: I don’t think that’s what God wants.
Preacher: Well, provide evidence that God doesn’t want it.
The burden of proof in each of these examples is shifted from the arguer onto the opponent. However, it is not the job of the opponent to disprove the arguer’s position. It is always the arguer’s task to provide solid evidence in support of his or her case. Without evidence, the arguer is simply making unsupported assertions.
The straw argument was originally named the straw man argument. It is an argument that intentionally presents a misrepresentation of a particular position in order to easily refute or dismiss it. A straw man is easier to knock down than a real person, hence the name. For example:
1. Jews and Christians simply believe that if you are good you will go to heaven, and if you are evil you will go to hell. This is the gist of their belief. So, you shouldn’t take them seriously.
In this example the views of Jews and Christians are intentionally distorted so that they can be easily dismissed. However, one with an eye for fallacious argumentation will recognize that the argument rests on an oversimplification. The theological beliefs of Jews and Christians are far more complicated than what is stated in the argument.
Consider these examples:
2. Anarchism is a political ideology stating that everyone should run around and fornicate in the streets. It is for this reason that I reject anarchism.
3. The Democratic position is essentially a fascist and Communist stance. So, if you are in favor of Communism and fascism, then you will vote for the Democratic Party.
In both of these straw arguments, a misrepresentation is used in order to easily discredit or reject a position. We must be careful when we encounter one who claims to refute a position that he or she finds disagreeable. Often this is not a refutation of the actual position, but a refutation of a perversion of the position.
Reductionism occurs when one reduces a complex phenomenon to a single fact that may or may not be related to that phenomenon. This is often done in order to explain a many-sided or multifaceted issue, event, or belief system. Reductionism is regularly found in explanatory statements given for involved occurrences or systems of thought such as religion, politics, or science. Consider these examples:
1. Religion is simply a response to economic inequality.
2. Science is the ideology of modern academia.
3. Politics is nothing more than a power struggle.
Here we see the basic structure of the fallacy of reductionism: x (a complex issue) is nothing more than y (a simple, often vague, explanation). This is similar to the straw argument. The difference is this: the straw argument intentionally misrepresents a particular point of view in order to dismiss it, whereas reductionism often involves an over generalized explanation that precludes other explanatory factors. This may or may not be intentional, but like the straw argument, it is certainly intellectually lazy.
Reductionism is a clear example of a fallacy of omission. All fallacies of omission leave out important information rather than attempting to explore and discuss the various aspects of the issue at hand.
This fallacy is committed when a person argues that a task or a goal should not be attempted because the possibility of reaching the goal or accomplishing the task is very unlikely. This argument is heard quite often when one rejects a certain business or political proposal due to the improbability of attaining it with perfection. For example:
1. We will never be able to fully eradicate crime on the streets of Oakland; therefore we should not waste our time and energy trying.
2. To create a coffee company that can truly compete with Java House is impossible. Therefore, we should not open a coffee shop.
In other words, the perfectionist fallacy states: if you cannot do something perfectly (or if you cannot finish something), then you should not even attempt it. This assumes that there is a right way to reach a goal, and that the end result is more important than the process or experience of working toward it. Another way of stating this fallacy is as follows: if you can’t do x in a particular manner, then you shouldn’t do it at all. Here are some final examples:
3. My artwork will never be as good as Picasso’s or Chagall’s. Therefore, I will not waste my time with it.
4. I keep going back to cigarettes. I have tried so many times to quit, but I can’t. I’ll always struggle with this. So, I guess I’ll just keep smoking.
5. If you cannot be a perfect husband, then why do you want to get married in the first place?
6. I’ll never be fluent in French, so I dropped my French class.
One of the main problems with this fallacy is its assumption that there is a universal definition of perfection, and that our actions should meet this definition and should be one hundred percent complete. In reality, many human goals or tasks get their value from the process of learning or making an effort rather than from their end results.
The fallacy of the unknowable fact contains as one of its premises a claim that is unknowable. This fallacy uses as evidence a “fact”—often speculation—that cannot be verified at the present time. For example:
1. Father to daughter: If you don’t go to college, then you’ll never be successful.
In this example, the father is claiming that he knows what the future holds for his daughter. However, the future is unknown, therefore there is no way to verify or falsify the father’s claim.
Consider this example:
2. If only Adolf Hitler had a healthy relationship with his parents, World War II would have never occurred.
No matter what one finds out about Hitler’s relationship with his parents, one cannot know how this relationship influenced his political decisions, let alone world history. To include this type of claim in one’s argument is to include unverifiable data. In order to argue well, one must avoid appealing to the unknowable.
Here are two final examples of the fallacy of the unknowable fact:
3. I wish I’d gone to dental school instead of majoring in art. I’d be rich now!
4. Elizabeth should have married Stan instead of Wayne. She would be so much happier.
More of a diversionary tactic than a logical fallacy, willed ignorance remains a common response to rational argumentation. Willed ignorance occurs when one simply refuses to engage in logical discourse or critical thinking, maintaining that his or her beliefs about the issue are the final and absolute answer. This often occurs in scientific, political, or religious discussions. For example:
1. Person A: It seems to me that there are contradictions in the New Testament regarding the status and role of women.
Person B: Well, what the Bible says is true, and that’s that—end of conversation!
2. Person A: There seem to be some inconsistencies in Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Person B: Einstein was a genius, and what he said is indisputable, period.
3. Person A: After reading The Republic, I believe that Plato is endorsing fascism.
Person B: You have no idea what you are talking about, and I will not discuss Plato’s work with you.
Willed ignorance is simply an inflexible, uncritical, unquestioning attitude that refuses to listen to the other side of an argument. A fundamental prerequisite for critical thinking is the ability to carefully and patiently consider various alternatives to the issue at hand. Critical thinking requires reflection and analysis of various viewpoints. This does not mean that all positions are correct—not at all! This simply means that one should avoid willed ignorance, and instead carefully analyze all arguments.