The False Dilemma works on the basis of an over-simplification of choices. I might say: Something is not A, therefore it must be B. This is a false dilemma because it ignores the possibility that the something may be C, D, E or a zillion other things.
In multi-valued logic, saying something is not A only implies that it is not A. It does not automatically follow that it is B.
Take the current rumble between Creationists and
Another example is this. When I watch TV, I sometimes flip channels and I hit these Christian Evangelical channels. Sometimes I linger and watch these shows (and believe me, they are shows). One time, there was this guy sitting with flipcharts and whatnot explaining how radiocarbon dating does not date things reliably beyond ten thousand years. Hence, he said loudly, this world must have been created not more than ten thousand years ago. That is a false choice.
I am guessing that the only people more brain-dead than flipchart guy must be the people who watch flipchart guy with devotion and straight faces. At least flipchart guy is getting paid.
If we follow these false choices all the way through, many interesting claims can be made. And by interesting, I mean fucking stupid.
For example: "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence there is a Creator God." You will notice that I can substitute almost anything for the phrase "hence there is a Creator God" and it will make precisely zero difference to the truth of the statement.
I could say for instance, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence the founders of Ben & Jerry's are really purple aliens."
Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence smearing pineapple jam on your toes in a slow circular motion will make you smarter."
Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence polyunsaturated fats are bad for you." In this case, the two clauses are individually true, but the link is bogus.
When you do not respect the causality between a premise and a conclusion, you can say anything followed by anything else. Maybe somebody will even give you your own TV show.
5 comments:
Hi Sougata,
True, there are large gaps in scientific explanations. That does not mean science is blantantly wrong, just that things cannot be explained with the knowledge and frame of reference at hand. And a lot of the world is not all that easy to understand or explain anyway. But it certainly does not mean that people strive to fill these gaps with divinity, which they are doing now.Oversimplification results in a moronic society.
Cheers
Jyoti,
You speak true.
The human mind is not comfortable with gaps, I think. We try to close gaps whenever we can. And sometimes we are not too choosy about the material we use as a filler.
Humans have different approaches to closing gaps, I might add. Some of us try to use something called the "Scientific Method", which is an imperfect but servicable gap-filler. Others go out and buy flipcharts.
Sougata.
darwinists find the concept of something driving that simply abhorrent
I am assuming that you use the term "darwinist" to refer to anybody with a scientific outlook. If this is the case, then I find it hard to believe that darwinists find the idea of a grand driving force abhorrent. My conjecture is that they only find the idea untestable, using present measurement methods.
No, I don't think that darwinists are closed to ideas. If that were the case, then scientific progress would be impossible. Science is in the business of constantly discarding old ideas and accepting new ones. Newton was the final word on mechanics for some time till quantum theory raised its ugly head and turned conventional wisdom upside down. Non-Euclidean geometry kicked classical parabolic geometry in the behind; and quite surely, in time, it will get its own behind kicked by something else.
In sharp contrast, theology has pretty much maintained its basic shape since its merry, carefree days of heretic-burning, idol-smashing, infidel-killing, caste-discriminating, and bride-incinerating, don't you think? Lord Ram was the final word then, and he is above reproach today. Jesus was the Saviour then, and he pretty much still rocks the town, no questions asked. Allah remains a jealous, scary type. Pretty slow-moving field, this theology, if you ask me. Only difference is that it can't do quite as much heretic-buring and infidel-killing nowadays. There are laws against that now.
I'm sorry Rob, I have to disagree with you on this one.
not because of the idea of something greater than themselves, but fear of association with the aforementioned morons with pretty pie charts.
Fear of association ... hmmm, sounds like a psychological problem to me. I am guessing here that the morons with the pretty charts, on the other hand, are quite comfortable in the company of Darwinists, yes?
Post a Comment