From Blogger Anne Kass: The Fallacy of False Choice

Recent posts to the DFNM website concerning the Israel/Lebanon horror left me thinking that not enough people saw the Doonesbury cartoon last Sunday. See below the fold.

Trudeau is obviously picking on Mr. Bush, in particular, but it is important to understand how the logical fallacy of "false choice" works. When a human brain (not just Mr. Bush's) is asked a question, it quickly tries to answer it. When the question is posed as a choice between two possibilities, the brain tends to exclude other options and pick one from the two provided. It is an especially vicious rhetorical tactic because it immediately narrows the focus and over-simplifies whatever is at issue. Worse yet, when a brain selects one of the choices, the brain tends to want to defend the correctness of the choice it made. That is to say, the brain makes an ill-informed choice then locks it in. 

Recently a friend, who supports Israel, seemingly in all things, wrote to me claiming that it seems a short step from "opposition to Israel to accepting the killing of Jews." I was reminded of Trudeau's depiction of false choices.

The opposition I feel and hear others express is to Israel dropping bombs, especially on civilian targets and on civilian infrastructure, and to Israel undertaking a ground invasion of Lebanon. Our opposition is to actions taken at the direction of the current Israeli government, and not to Israel. It is a false choice that one must either approve of whatever Israel does or stand convicted of being opposed to Israel. Moreover, I've heard no sane person promote the killing of Jews or even the acceptance of killing Jews, and it is another false choice to suggest that either one must accept what Israel is doing or be convicted as having taken a step towards approving the killing of Jews.  The framing of this invasion in terms of Israel fighting for its life is yet another example of a false choice. The notion that one must choose between Israel destroying Lebanon or Israel being destroyed itself cannot withstand rational analysis, not today any more than in the 1980's when another such conflagration occurred and the same false choice was offered to us.

I am altogether weary of the rhetorical gimmicks that have infected virtually every aspect of what is called political discourse. If we're to have sensible conversations and if we're to engage in useful explorations for genuine solutions, the gimmicks and rhetorical excesses must be set aside. Let's start by becoming acutely aware of tricks disguised as questions posed in either/or terms. Be careful!  Know that your brain quickly accepts the task of choosing one, in which case you will almost certainly come to a bad decision. The tactic of either/or creates a simplistic picture of what is always a complex situation and once the simplistic decision is taken, it gets stuck, meaning learning, growth, considering new information, and critical thinking are diminished. We can and must do better.

Editor's Note: I'm pleased to announce that Anne Kass has agreed to be a regular contributor to the DFNM blog. Keep an eye out for future posts by Anne as they can pop up any time, whenever the writing spirit moves her.

(Click on image for larger version.)