http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp07PcG-6N4&feature=watch_response
I once perused a debate in which the advocate for one side criticized the argument for the other on the grounds that it was so full of dichotomies he couldn’t even count them all.
Oh no. Those dreadful dichotomies always doing diddly during the Dramamine drip. It seems to me that, to make this criticism any less meaningful, he would have to have criticized the argument for being full of words. Here he is misleading without actually lying. The argument he was commenting on was full of dichotomies. But what does that mean?
“Dichotomy.”
“Whoa. Big word. He sounds so smart. He must know what he’s talking about. I guess I’d better throw in with him.”
This was an argument crafted not to the end of reaching a reliable conclusion and leading others to it as well, but only to the end of sounding impressive to someone unfamiliar with this particular word (dichotomy). I was not such a person.
The way he uses this term, it sounds like a synonym for “hole” or “fallacy.” It’s a dishonest use of the term, but not an actual lie. The other argument was full of dichotomies, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
You see, to dichotomize is to take all the concepts or objects in a certain category and sort them into two groups; to arrange them in a dichotomy. If it were three groups, it would be a trichotomy. Di-two, Tri-three. See how this works?
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with one of these. In fact a dichotomy can be an incredibly useful thing, as long as it’s true. For that to be the case, it must satisfy two vital criteria:
1. The two categories must have no gap.
2. The two categories must have no overlap.
There are two kinds of chemical compounds: organic (having carbon) and inorganic (lacking carbon). There is no way for a chemical compound to neither have carbon nor to lack it. There is no way for a chemical compound to both have carbon and to lack it. A compound either has carbon or it doesn’t. Therefore this dichotomy is true.
There are two kinds of animals: those with a spine (vertebrates) and those without a spine (invertebrates). An animal is either a vertebrate or an invertebrate. There is no gap between the concepts allowing an animal to avoid both classifications, and there is no overlap between the concepts which would allow an animal to fall into both classifications. Therefore this dichotomy is true.
There is a program on PBS called Nova. One two-part episode detailed the trial of Kitzmiller vs. Dover
But the very family which took the ID advocates to court for violating the no-establishment clause of the first amendment were people who believed in and worshipped Christ (Christianity) and also accepted that life changes over time as a result of mutation and natural selection (evolution), and had no difficulty whatsoever reconciling the one with the other. The same holds true about Dr. Kenneth Miller, a biologist, and author of Finding Darwin’s God, who testified at the trial. So when it comes to accepting Christ and evolution, one can indeed accept both. One can fall into both categories. There is overlap.
Consider the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Classical-era Greeks. These were three groups of people who held no belief in Christ or evolution. They believed in gods, sure; just not that particular one.
Now consider the Raelians in France
So one can indeed fall into neither category (gap), or one can fall into both (overlap), or one can fall into one or the other. “Either one can accept evolution or one can accept Christ” is a dichotomy which fails both criteria necessary to be true. This makes it a false dichotomy. That’s the name for this fallacy.
Most of the contexts in which I encounter this are indeed religious. It goes like this:
“Why don’t you believe in God?”
“Which god are we talking about here?”
“Well there’s only one.”
“Yes. And I’m asking which one that is.”
Christians and Muslims (so far no Jews) ask me all the time how come I don’t believe in God but can never seem to answer when I respond by asking them to clarify which god they’re referring to. If we’re going to speak in the singular (God) instead of the plural (gods), if the atheist must be ready to present a reason for not accepting the god of the Quran or of the Bible, then the Muslim and the Christian must each likewise be ready to present reasons for not accepting Adad, Anu, Apsu, Dumuzi, Ea, Enlil, Ishtar, Ninhursag, Nisaba, Shamash, Sin, Ahura-Mazda, Amon, Anubis, Aten, Bes, Hapi, Hathor, Horus, Isis, Maat, Osiris, Ptah, Set, Thoth, Ganesh, Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Hanuman, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Durga, Kali, Saraswati, Zeus, Selene, Poseidon, Persephone, Nike, Hestia, Hermes, Heracles, Hera, Hephaestus, Helios, Eros, Dionysus, Demeter, Athena, Artemis, Ares, Apollo, Aphrodite, Venus, Phoebus, Mars, Diana, Minerva, Ceres, Bacchus, Cupid, Pluto, Phoebus, Vulcan, Juno, Hercules, Mercury, Vesta, Proserpina, Neptune, Diana, Jupiter, Wakan Tanka, Mithra, Odin, Balder, Frigg, Thor, Tyr, Loki, Freya, Sif, Bragi, Forseti, Heimdall, Ve, Tezcatlipoca, Chalchiuhtlicue, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli, Kukulcan, Chac, Kinich Ahau, Yumil Kaxob, Yum Cimil, Ixtab, Yum Kaax, Ix Chel, Ixbalanque, Hunahpu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Transcendent Radish, the Great Plaid Ninja, the Great Bearded Elvis, the Magic Turnip and Puff the Magic Dragon just to name a few.
One does not need a reason not to accept the existence of something. One needs a reason to accept that existence. Otherwise, one needs a reason not to accept the existence of all these and many more. Humanity across the ages has worshipped (I’m not exaggerating here) tens of thousands of gods, every last one of whom except one the Jews, Christians, Muslim, and Mormons, deny just as readily as atheists do. Every last one of these gods can be accepted or not. This is a question of tens of thousands of true dichotomies. Therefore the act of treating it all as one makes that one dichotomy not only false, but preposterous and ignorant.
No comments:
Post a Comment