• Гідрологія і Гідрометрія
• Господарське право
• Економіка будівництва
• Економіка природокористування
• Економічна теорія
• Земельне право
• Історія України
• Кримінально виконавче право
• Медична радіологія
• Методи аналізу
• Міжнародне приватне право
• Міжнародний маркетинг
• Основи екології
• Предмет Політологія
• Соціальне страхування
• Технічні засоби організації дорожнього руху
• Товарознавство продовольчих товарів

The two - extremes fallacy (false dilemma)

The two-extremes fallacy is at work in this statement by Lenin, the great Marxist leader:”You cannot eliminate one basic assumption, one substantial part of this philosophy of Marxism (it is as if it were a block of steel), without falling into the arms of bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.” In other words, if we don’t agree 100 percent with every premise of Marxism, we must be placed at the opposite end of the political- economic spectrum – for Lenin, “bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.” If we are not entirely with him, we must be against him; those are the only possibilities open to us. Of course, this is a logical fallacy; in real life there are any number of political questions one can maintain between the two extremes of Marxism and capitalism.

Sentor Yakalot uses the two –extremes fallacy in the same way as Lenin when he tells his audience that “in this world a man’s either for private enterprise or he’s for socialism.”

One of the most famous examples of the two –extremes fallacy in recent history is the slogan, “America: Love it or leave it.” With its implicit suggestion that we either accept everything just as it is in America today without complaint- or just get out. Again, it should be obvious that there is a whole range of action and belief between those two extremes.

Don’t be duped; stop and ask, “Are those really the only two options I can choose from? Are there other alternatives not mentioned that deserve consideration?”

Card stacking

Some questions are so multifaceted and complex that no one can make an intelligent decision about them without considering a wide variety of evidence. One selection of facts could make us feel one way and another selection could make us feel just the opposite. Card stacking is a device of propaganda, which selects only the facts that support the propagandist’s point of view, and ignores all the others. For example, a candidate could be made to look like a legislative dynamo if you say, “Representative McNerd introduced more new bills than any other member of the Congress,” and neglect to mention that most of them were so preposterous that they were laughed off the floor.

The best protection against card stacking is to take the “Yes, but…”attitude. This device of propaganda is not untrue, but then again it is not the whole truth. So ask yourself, “Is the person leaving something out that I should know about? Is there some other information that should be brought to bear on this question?”

Переглядів: 698