The False Dichotomy

(Why Americans Can No Longer Solve Problems By Discussion)

Definitions

Definitions from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary

Discussion: Consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate

Communication: A process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs or behavior

Conversation: Oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas

Argument: A reason given in proof or rebuttal, a coherent series of reasons offered

Debate: A regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

Opinion: A view, a judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

Question: An interrogative expression often used to test knowledge

Knowledge: The fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association.

To know: To perceive directly; to have understanding of; to be aware of the truth or factuality of

Logical: Formally true or valid

Standard: Something established by authority, custom or general consent

Fact: A piece of information presented as having objective reality

False: Not genuine; intentionally untrue; adjusted or made so as to deceive

Dichotomy: A division or the process of dividing into two, especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups

The Focus of this Essay

False Dichotomy: As used in this essay, the dividing of a logical discussion, conversation, argument or debate into two parts that are not a true division of the topic into opposing view points and which prevent discussion of the real points of disagreement.

Preface

The object of this essay is to explain the concept of the false dichotomy, not to convert anyone to thinking one way or another on an issue. The discussion that follows may well espouse positions or ideas with which you disagree. If you disagree with viewpoints expressed in this essay, insert your own. The premise of the false dichotomy is still true whether the answers given are true or false.

Beware of establishing a false dichotomy regarding this book: 1. The premise of this book and its philosophic conclusions are correct or 2. Both premise and philosophy are in error. The philosophy could be completely in error and the premise that the false dichotomy is at the bottom of most divisive arguments raging in our society today could still be absolutely correct.

Introduction

At no other time in history have there been so many ways for so many people to communicate with each other. Newspapers, magazines, radio, television and the Internet are filled with attempts at communication. Editors of newspapers and magazines, moderators of radio talk shows, hosts of television talk shows and those who post their thoughts on the Internet web sites and bulletin boards all have opinions and ideologies which they publish or broadcast.

The latter – Internet postings – have become known as “blogs”, from “web logs”, in which any person today with access to a computer can publish their writing on the Internet where literally billions of people can read them. They have become increasingly important during political campaigns where they are not only used to post the positions candidates, their supporters and their detractors take on issues but also used for fund raising. Blogs also post errors in the print and broadcast media and thus offer an almost instantaneous rebuttal of the mainstream media.

The sheer volume of communication available is overwhelming for any individual. Many people reduce this volume by not reading or not watching or not listening to much of this attempted communication. More than half of the population of the United States tells pollsters they get most of their "news" from television.

With the proliferation of broadcast, cable and satellite television channels offering shows ranging from watching someone catch fish or play golf through situation comedies, so-called “reality” shows and game shows to the "nightly news" and television talk shows, a person is able to listen to or watch all sorts of communication. This is not two-way communication. This is completely passive for the viewer or listener.

The mass media offers little or no opportunity for an individual to respond to the ideas of another. Letters to the editor or producer or calls to radio or television talk shows allow only a tiny percentage of the public to air their response to what is said by others and these venues are carefully screened by editors or producers so that opposing or contributory ideas are most often not presented.

While this one-way communication can be helpful to an individual attempting to learn about a given subject, it also can be and is used by the mass media to control the discussion process.

The mainstream media – the major broadcast television networks, the big city newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times – at one time not more than 20 years ago could pretty much control the dissemination of news in the USA. Holding such control over the news often led to highly partisan reporting and since the late 1960’s that partisanship has been largely of a liberal nature. They either reported only those stories that buttressed their political or social agendas or slanted stories for the same purpose – even to the point of reported “news” that was mostly or completely untrue.

The advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web now filled with millions of blogs has loosened that control of the discussion process. Blogs often provide links to stories published or broadcast by the mainstream media and follow that with commentary or other stories that contradict what was published or broadcast. In this manner, the mainstream media can be called to account when they report one-sided or false information about a subject and it can be done in a matter of minutes.

CBS news anchor Dan Rather reported some information regarding the National Guard service of George W. Bush that was intended to damage his election chances during the 2004 election. When bloggers discovered that documents presented by Rather were almost certainly forgeries, not only did it actually enhance Bush’s chances for re-election but also resulted in CBS firing Dan Rather.

Such a thing would have been impossible before the advent of the Internet.

It is only in the free exchange of ideas that a theory of philosophical position can be demonstrated to be valid or faulty. It is only when a discussion is focused on a specific topic that error or truth can be shown by competing parties.

Although it may seem simplistic, it is extremely difficult for two or more people to profit or learn from a discussion unless they are discussing the same thing.

At no other time in USA history has there been such a lack of ability to have meaningful discussions of issues important to our culture and society. Viewpoints are presented in the media or in debates but the viewpoints almost seem unrelated and not the subject for contemplation and discussion. Two sides of political, social and philosophical issues are presented but there seems to be no common ground on which some consensus can be reached. The two sides are “talking past” each other and it seems there is no way for the sides to agree on anything.

At the heart of this dysfunctional communication is the presence of a false dichotomy.

In order to understand any problem, whether mathematical, scientific, philosophical or social in nature, it is helpful to break the problem into its component parts. Each of those parts can then be broken down until certain basic points or facts can be agreed upon. Once certain "baselines" are established, the components of the problem can then be reconstructed built upon those points of agreement or fact.

In social or philosophical discussions, the facts are not so clear as they are in mathematics. In mathematics and much of hard science, at least in fundamental areas, there are certain laws or rules that apply so that beliefs and opinions have no real application. It is in political, philosophical, moral, ethical and social ("PPMES") topics that disagreements about fundamental components will occur based on an individual's beliefs and opinions.

The difficulty in discussion of PPMES problems is that there is so much agreement about rules; the "baselines" are not clearly defined; it is sometimes impossible to establish communication when the two or more parties involved do not figuratively speak the same language. Two or more people attempting to discuss a subject without first establishing clear baselines will always meet with abject failure in that discussion.

It is this lack of agreed-upon baselines in PPMES problems that leads to the establishment of false dichotomies.

Once a false dichotomy is inserted into PPMES discussion, arguments instead of discussions ensue and true communication disintegrates.

A dichotomy in PPMES problems should make both sides of an argument more clear and concise and easier to understand. A false dichotomy clouds issues and frustrates the presenters of both sides of a discussion.

A "false dichotomy" is one in which two points or ideas are compared as if they were opposing viewpoints when in fact they are not directly related to each other. Thus two sides of an argument are presented, but there are two different arguments going on – at least four points are being presented instead of two. And the sides cannot meet and compromise because they are talking about different things or ideas.

Most of the PPMES discussions and arguments heard today in America are based on false dichotomies.

In order to solve these PPMES problems, these false dichotomies must be eliminated. In order to eliminate false dichotomies from discussions, the concept of false dichotomy and its origins must be understood.

The Confluence of New Religions

Over the past 200 years, four new bodies of religious ideology have taken Western Civilization from its Judeo-Christian roots into a new religious era. This era has culminated in a rapidly deteriorating culture that its leaders, both political and religious, seem unable to reverse.

The disintegration of families, neighborhoods and communities, the loss of all respect for the institutions and traditions of society, a rising incidence of crime and violence especially among the young and the loss of respect for life itself have led to a malevolent malaise which seems to infect each generation more virulently than the last. These four bodies of religious ideology are each at least partially the cause of these symptoms of a sick society. The rise of each ideology, first into belief by the intellectual/educational community, and then into acceptance by the general public, have been clear warning signs on the road to societal destruction for Western Civilization.

Darwinism, Freudian psychology, Marxism and Relativism/Humanism can be demonstrated to be religions. Among the definitions listed for "religion" in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary is this: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

The Religion of Darwinism

Darwinism, as practiced today, holds to the "theory" that all life sprang from simple elements and the present configuration of all beings and matter have evolved to their present state. This religious tenant explaining the origin of man cannot be proved: it is accepted and believed by its adherents in a manner than can only be described as faith. Webster's defines "faith" as: "firm belief in something for which there can be no proof". Darwin's theories have been refined and spread throughout the scientific community, accepted and commonly promulgated by the entertainment and news media and generally affects the lives of those who accept those theories in their actions in every day life. It is not whether the theories of Darwin are right or wrong that matters; it is the attitudes and actions taken by those who have faith in Darwin's ideas that affect our culture and society. To most people, belief in Darwin replaces belief in Deity. Darwinism offers no 10 commandments, no scripture, and no understandable rules by which one may conduct one's life.

Belief in the religion of Darwin most often leads to a belief that there are no PPMES rules in life.

The Religion of Freudian Psychology

Freudian psychology likewise rests on theories that cannot be proven. Although much of Freud's original hypotheses have been discredited, the approach to explaining the origin of motivations and actions of people has been profoundly affected by those theories. Much of the once-accepted tenant of personal responsibility has been swept away by explaining behavior in terms of the influences of others especially during the formative years in peoples' lives. This has allowed an individual who fails to blame others for that failure. This has allowed those who fail to think of themselves as victims rather than to experience the learning process that is mostly based on failure. It is the overcoming of failure which provides strength to one's convictions and which forms the basis for the next success that will most often be preceded by failure. Blaming others for one's failures weakens personal resolve and stops the learning processes dead cold.

Belief in the religion of Freud negates the concept of personal responsibility.

The Religion of Marxism

Marxism contains the basic tenant that "religion is the opiate of the masses" and wherever Marxism has flourished there has been a repression of religions that believe in an ultimate Deity. Marxism's "god" is the state. Karl Marx's theories have been proven wrong and have been thoroughly discredited by the fall of the Soviet Union and the devastation wreaked on all societies where communism has been installed.

Yet today, there are thousands of people who remain faithful to the beliefs of that system. Marxism's tenants claim to lift the "masses" into positions of power but, in fact, is just another form of totalitarianism with the leaders of the communist party exercising the same types of power and control over those masses as the outright dictator.

By advocating the redistribution of wealth by the hidden dictators of the party and by the removal of hard and firm rules governing personal behavior, Marxism not only removes the necessity for personal responsibility and allows those who fail to blame others for their plight, but it puts the weight of government behind these concepts.

The wealth of the producers in a nation is quickly dissipated by redistribution to the masses and the hoarding of wealth by the hidden dictators. As vividly demonstrated by the Soviet Union, infrastructure fails, personal incentive dies and the masses wind up even poorer and more abused that almost any other political system ever devised. Dissenters are often murdered in large numbers and what peace arises out of the chaos is only achieved by oppression.

Belief in the religion of Marx negates the concept of personal responsibility, removes social and moral guidelines established over hundreds of centuries, results in holocausts that in the sheer numbers of those murdered by the State causes the Nazi holocaust of the 1930's and 1940's to pale in comparison.

The Religion of Humanism/Relativism

Relativism/Humanism is the bastard offspring of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwinism, the theories of Freud and the politics of Marxism.

Einstein and others demonstrated that the physical universe was not the clockwork mechanism envisioned by philosophers and scientists from the time of the Greeks culture to the beginning of the “enlightenment” period of the 1600’s. As further defined in scientific thought over the past 400 years, the mindset that "everything is relative" has been incorporated into human behavior and interaction.

Even “religious” teachers like Joseph Fletcher have incorporated this thinking. Fletcher was the Episcopalian minister and academic who popularized the idea of “situation ethics”, in which an individual’s actions were not governed by any fixed rules but had to be determined by the setting and circumstances of the individual.

Einstein's scientific theory concerning the physical structure of the universe has effectively been proven by thousands of controlled experiments.

Marxism and Freudian psychology have been discredited. There are a great many mainstream scientists who question the theories presented by Darwin and some of his basic tenets – for example, the transition of one species into another – are being called into question by objective scientists because there is no proof whatsoever for their foundations.

But somehow, the philosophic offspring resulting from combining these religions – Darwinism, Marxism and Freudian psychology – and Einstein’s scientific theories of the physical universe have been incorporated in the culture and society of Western Civilization as humanism (the belief that the human mind is the ultimate authority, i.e., god) and relativism.

The religion of humanism removes all restraints on human behavior developed over thousands of years by myriad cultures and religions. The only rules are those imposed by circumstances and they change from day to day and from situation to situation. Rules believed for hundreds of years to be given by Deity and which have been proven by stability in societies that adhered to those rules are discarded and replaced by social chaos.

The Effect of New Religions Upon Discourse

In Western Culture, the predominant religions over the past 500 years have been Christianity and Judaism. While these two religions broke ranks some 1900 years ago, they are both based on the idea of monotheism, i.e., a belief in one God. That God has been perceived not only as Creator but also as Lawgiver.

The latter perception gave rise to the incorporation of certain laws from those religions into civil law. The primary religious laws incorporated as civil laws have prohibited theft, murder, lying while under oath and adultery. Other religious laws have been incorporated into civil law: the prohibitions against the illegal moving of the boundaries of privately owned property, for instance, has its origin in the body of religious law known as the Torah or the Law of Moses. The practice of declaring national holidays in which people are freed from working has its origin in the declaration of national "holy days" and “sabbaths” in that same body of law.

The prohibitions against theft and murder are found in almost every culture that has existed in history. The prohibition of adultery has led to the institution of government sanctioned and recognized marriage between a man and a woman. The prohibitions against lying under oath are found in local, state and federal law in the United States today in laws forbidding perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering and submission of false documents in legal proceedings.

A whole body of standards were developed and incorporated into Western Culture – standards based on the body of Judeo-Christian law and the philosophy of ethics and morality that grew out of those standards. For most of the last 500 years, this philosophy has held sway not only over official proceedings and politics but also over the very ethics and morals professed by most of the population of the nations of Western Culture.

In the last 100 years, the confluence of new religions and the incorporation of the belief systems of these new religions into Western institutions has led to first, a relaxation of those standards, then, to a questioning of those standards and last, today, to a denial that those standards have any relevance in political, philosophical, moral, ethical and social ("PPMES") debate.

These systems of belief (Darwinism, Freudian psychology, Marxism and Relativism) have profoundly affected not only the thought processes of today's society but each, in its own way, has removed parts of the very foundation on which Western Civilization was constructed. Respect and adherence to common law and standards developed over centuries, first in Europe especially in England and then spread to much of the rest of the world by the civilization of the United States, have been weakened by each ideology in its turn and each in its own profound way.

As a result of the rise into predominance of the four religions or ideologies in the latter half of the 20th Century, the people of the United States have been divided by government programs, opinion-makers, intellectuals and the media into various groups and these groups have found themselves being unable to communicate: black vs. white, young vs. old, children vs. parents, rich vs. poor, labor vs. management, women vs. men, homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, liberals vs. conservative, Democrats vs. Republicans, the East and West Coast metropolitan areas vs. rural areas and the rest of the country, religious vs. secular, etc.

Coupled with the dissemination of these four religions into our society, their popularization by the mass media and entertainment industry over the past 50 years has caused the ability to rationally discuss the problems of our society to virtually disappear.

Presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan had it exactly right in his speech to the Republican National Convention in 1992: there is a culture war going on in the United States as well as the rest of Western Culture. That war pits the standards of Judeo-Christianity along with its PPMES philosophy against that of the New Religions with their attendant denial of the existence of such standards and the relevance of that philosophy.

The major problem in communication between the two sides (Judeo-Christianity and Darwinism, Freudian psychology, Marxism and Relativism) in this war is the denial of the existence of standards.

The Breakdown In Communication

Communication: A process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs or behavior

Standard: Something established by authority, custom or general consent

By definition, communication is dependent upon there being a "common system of symbols, signs or behavior". These symbols and signs are standards. Communication fails without established standards: in two-way radio communication, there must be a "standard" frequency used by both parties; otherwise communication fails; when using the Internet, there must be a standard for the types of digital information sent hypertext transfer protocol (http) or binary digital protocols; otherwise communication fails; in spoken or written communication, there must be a standard language used; otherwise communication fails.

The denial of the efficacy of standards in communication results in a breakdown of communication.

The new religions manifest themselves in today's society in "situation ethics" or "relativism" as all four of these scientific/ethical/political/ moral systems promulgate the negation of standards. No law, no fact, no standard is secure. Everything is relative. And we have no secure belief in who we are or what our purpose in life is.

Situation ethics, popularized by the late Joseph Fletcher, accepts as a basic belief that there are no moral or ethical standards that each situation is different, and an intelligent person's behavior and values may vary according to the situation.

Secular humanism accepts the human being as the author of the highest possible moral codes and therefore its codes are subject to change at the whim of humanity. There is no room or place for God or any other "authority" in determining how human beings "should" act: all is determined by either the individual or by standards developed by groups. The individual human mind becomes “god”.

Relativism, the body of beliefs of secular humanism, completely eliminates the need for standards covering more than one person or one group.

Darwinism takes for granted that human life and consciousness is an accident of evolution. Therefore, standards change. Everything evolves.

Marxism is based in the naive assumption that people will work and achieve with the work as its own reward. This is true for some people some of the time, but untrue for a large enough percentage of the population to ensure that the system will never work. Communism simplistically denies the nature of man while providing the perfect venues for despots and people of little talent who are effective in politics to rise to positions of power in society. The standards for Marxism are based on the prevailing thoughts of the ruling members of the Communist Party.

Freudian psychology adds the lack of personal responsibility in finding individual destinies. What we are, indeed, who we are, was somehow affected by what happened to us during formative stages and the mind is often at the whim of the subconscious, over which, by definition, we have no control. This lack of control confirms and validates the idea that there are no standards applicable to more than one person or one group.

This lack of standards in the prevailing political, social, moral, ethical and philosophical ("PPMES") systems accepted by many large segments of society coupled with the pervasive influence of the media promulgating these same principles has led to the establishment of false dichotomies in the logic systems of those who are debating the prevalent issues in our society.

The establishment of false dichotomies in intellectual arguments and societal discourse totally destroys communication and ensures the frustration of all parties concerned and will eventually lead to a destruction of our society.

America Divided

On almost every major issue before society today, a false dichotomy is set up so that nothing can be settled. The proponents of both sides are highly emotional in their arguments and since they are addressing different issues, there is no common ground.

This is the real evil: it is almost impossible to solve any problem where both sides are shouting slogans and no one is listening to anyone else. And how can anyone listen to someone from "the other side" when the "other side" refuses to address the questions raised by "our side". And, of course, "our side" most often is not addressing the questions raised by "the other side". If no one is listening, and no one is addressing the other side's real questions, then there are no answers given, there is no communication, and there is only left the hatred and prejudice that comes when communication lines are broken.

"Right" Answers Can Only Come When The "Right" Questions Are Asked!

The right questions cannot be asked when the two sides of an argument are running on parallel tracks in the opposite direction.

It is the frustration from dealing with false dichotomies in the major issues in our society that has so many people turned off. We recognize that our country needs leadership but we don't register to vote because we feel that our vote "doesn't matter". We tell ourselves that there's no difference in one party or the other, no difference in one politician and another, and that they're all crooks and if we vote one out, there's another to take his place. We don't become involved in political issues because there's nothing but a lot of shouting going on and nobody is going to change anybody's mind!

The manifestation of these new religions in society laid the groundwork for the formation of false dichotomies that ensures that the real PPMES problems not only will not be solved but that they will not really even be discussed.

Where Are We Going As A Society?

Around the world, nations are breaking into smaller parts. Look at what happened to the former Soviet Union; look at what's become of the former Yugoslavia, now broken into Bosnia, Herzegovinia, Croatia with demands now for a further division into those who consider themselves "Macedonians". The divisions of India and surrounding nations continue with a new "nation" arising every few months.

Those who fear the appearance of a "new world order" with a central ruling government over the whole earth are not watching the trends around the world. We are more likely to return to some form of feudalism that to accede to a one-world government.

In the USA, national polls continue to demonstrate the rise of mistrust of the Federal government. The combination of loss of industrial jobs and the continuing conversion to computer automation in every aspect of business and society has many millions of people worried about their economic future. The exposure of public officials as crooks continues: the House banking scandal; the Iran-Contra affair; the savings and loan debacle; the prevalence of "yellow journalism" so that reliable information is hard to come by. All these things have served to deepen and intensify the animosity most people already felt toward centralized government.

And yet all the rifts and divisions and controversies and arguments and sorry spectacles are only symptoms. At the heart of every one of these problems lie the false dichotomies in logic that affect us all. Every one of us has opinions and ideas formed whose basis is a false dichotomy. Until we learn to deal with issues and controversies on an honest, logical basis, we are going to continue to misunderstand each other and to misrepresent each other and we will continue to teach our children our ways of misunderstanding.

Do False Dichotomies Come From The Mass Media?

How much do you really know about what's going on in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan? What is the real cause of recessions in our economy? How does your city or county decide how much property or sales tax should be levied on your and your neighbors? Who decides what is taught in the schools you and your children attend? Is there really proof of global warming? How badly are our water supplies polluted? Is there really an "ozone hole" in our atmosphere and should you really be worried about it? Is Sweet & Low really better or worse for you than sugar? Does a low-fat diet really reduce your cholesterol level and is that important? How many women routinely use abortion as birth control? Are there really two-thirds of inner city children born out of wedlock? Are women really discriminated against in schools? Does capital punishment really deter crime? Are Democrats /Socialists really for the "little people" the average working man and woman and are the Republicans really "for" the rich only?

If you've been near television or radio sets or if you've read any national magazines in the past two years, you've probably heard most of these questions raised before. These questions have no simple answers. They often do not break down into simple yes or no answers; they may have obtuse answers like "sometimes", "maybe", "no one really knows", or "the subject needs more study". Sometimes answers to these questions just raise more questions.

Perhaps the false dichotomy has been prevalent for centuries and its absence from history can be explained by the 20/20 vision of hindsight. But the more likely scenario is that the false dichotomy is the product of the mass media generation – a generation of superficiality. Our children are placed in front of television sets before they learn to talk. The number of hours of TV viewing continues to climb as the education of our children continues to deteriorate.

Marshall McClughan described media in terms of "hot" or "cold". "Hot" media is television: the viewer doesn't have to think or imagine anything TV does it all for you. If the senses of smelling, tasting and feeling were added, it would be the most superficial experience ever by mankind. Television experience is not real in human terms.

The TV picture tube does not function like our eyes and yet it seems to be a real visual experience. Think of the difference between the simple act of meeting someone, having a conversation, and all the sensory experience that goes along with this simple act, and then compare this to watching television. Television stunts the imagination because none is required to experience the medium. Your child sees and hears everything necessary for the program and there is no need for imagination.

"Cold" media, according to McClughan, is that requiring reading as in newspapers, magazines and books. That act requires the use of our imagination as well as our cognitive senses. These range in "coldness" from the colorful USA Today to the stone coldness of a textbook on Greek philosophy.

Many children today and young adults under 30 years old have never read an entire book! We're not talking about "dropouts" here: these are people who make good grades in school; in some cases they're people with college degrees; these are the people who are to become "the leaders of tomorrow"! Many of these people are virtually devoid of imagination. This shows in their preference of "slapstick" and vulgar humor to puns or other complicated forms of humor.

To better understand "hot" and "cold" media, think of the hundreds of channels available on cable or satellite systems and compare this to the local public library and how you and your children use these two types of media. The false dichotomies are not the result of arguments and philosophies learned from reading books; they are the result of arguments and positions espoused by people who are written about and photographed and televised by the mass media.

We are about to see what will happen when this generation takes over the reins of government, homes and businesses. Maybe this is just another social revolution like the one that took place at the onset of the "industrial revolution"; maybe this is just the social upheaval surrounding the advent of the "information age". But it may also be de-volution, with the essential loss of several generations until a new one arises that will change things. The human race is durable and tough: we are survivors! We will no doubt survive what's happening to society today, but the process may not be very pleasant.

Complex Cultural Debates Containing False Dichotomies

Recognizing and Dealing With False Dichotomies

What season of the year is your favorite? First, you form the dichotomy: do you prefer 1. Warm or 2. Cold weather? Each answer provides another dichotomy: 1. Mildly warm as in spring or 2. Beach weather in the summer or 2. Cold: mildly cool, as in the crisp football weather of the autumn or ice-skating weather in the dead of winter. Further divisions can be made, but a true dichotomy is helpful in thinking. Forming a dichotomy is commonplace and all of us do it dozens of times daily without even thinking about it. It is the fact that the logic dichotomy is so commonplace the fact that we perform this logical exercise automatically that causes such problems when the process malfunctions!

The false dichotomy is easy to spot once you become aware of it. A nonsensical example will demonstrate: "Would you rather slide down a rack made of the edges of razor blades into a vat of isopropyl alcohol or would you rather have your teeth pulled by an orangutan using pliers with you having no anesthetic?"

If these are your only two choices, you're in real trouble! If confronted seriously with this question, or a similar nonsensical one, most of us would ask, "Is there not another choice?" We recognize, due to the absurdity of the situation, that we shouldn't have to choose between two choices which both seem so ridiculous!

The false dichotomies which confront us in daily life are neither as absurd as the razor blades - pulling teeth example nor as easy to discern as the seasonal examples. What we face are all sorts of options that develop when comparing choices. Sometimes there seems to be more that just two choices. Sometimes there appear to be clear-cut compromises between the points that share qualities of both points. If we are basically honest and fair people, we often admit that both sides of an argument often have very attractive points. We wind up comparing the pros and cons of both sides and then choosing the one we think is the most favorable to us or the more "right" in the long run.

The only real, all - pervasive evil in this society is man's mistreatment of man. The false dichotomies promulgated by the media and the "leaders" of our society harm us all by not allowing honest debate by confusing the most important issues of our day by offering two equally closed - minded alternatives as the only possible answers when they are not even related.

In a false dichotomy, the two sides give answers to different questions while appearing to be answering the same question. There is no real opposition in terms of a single question.

We need to learn to ask the right questions. We've got to replace the false dichotomies with proper divisions reflecting the real sides to issues. Then the issues can be honestly debated instead of having shouting matches. Then we can work together, have honest discussions and honest disagreements and perhaps come closer to understanding the real answers in life.

The Evil of the False Dichotomy

The real evil is not that one side is exclusively wrong and the other right; the evil is the misuse of the dichotomy: A profound, complex issue is often presented as if there were only two possible answers and those answers are not related to the same question!

Radical environmentalists tell is "the sky is falling" in some new way every few days while the indiscriminate use of drugs pollute our bodies and destroy our ability to fight disease; some radical feminists claim that all heterosexual contact is rape even in marriage while some extremists on the other side want all women uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen; African-descent Americans believe that white supremacist scientists invented the AIDS disease to eradicate blacks and Americans with lighter skins believe all blacks are epitomized by the black, inner city welfare mothers or the rioters in East Los Angeles; the extreme political left believes there's a Federal government program that will cure any ill in society while the extreme right wants the "producers" in society to ride roughshod over everyone whose chief occupation is not related to making money. There are no points of agreement; there is no room to compromise; there is only anger and frustration that polarizes our society.

And almost every one of these issues is firmly set in a false dichotomy!

These false dichotomies are debilitating to us personally (How can we be sure we're making the right choices?) and they are devastating to us as a society (How can we live in peace if we cannot even discuss our problems?)! They may be calamitous internationally (How can we avoid war if we cannot communicate? How can we prosecute a war if we cannot reach consensus?). False dichotomies are generally the cause of much of the misery and unrest in our lives and in the entire world today.

If you think the premise is overstated or exaggerated, consider this: the world today is fragmenting reversing the social and political trends of the last 300 years of "melting pots" and integration of societies and cultures. In the USA, people with larger amounts of melanin in their skin insist on being called "African - Americans" and are fearful of "losing their culture" and becoming lost in the "Euro centric" white society. This poses a larger obstacle to their integration into our society than the Ku Klux Klan or any white-supremacy group ever could. No group will ever become integrated with another if both sides are opposed. At least the extreme white fringe groups were recognized as kooks and ridiculed by most of society. Many intellectuals as personified in the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan and others laud today’s black separatist movement. The "cultural diversity" courses added to the curriculum of many universities drives a permanent wedge between black and white by emphasizing the "evil" of Euro centrism and the "warm nature" of African cultures. The racist segregationists of the 1950's would be laughing in derision should they see black leaders demanding that African-Americans be allowed to segregate themselves on college campuses.

Abortion

The false dichotomy: one side argues that abortion should be illegal because an unborn child is still a human being with all attendant rights guaranteed by the constitution; the other side argues that the "right to privacy" of the mother allows her to do anything with a child that is unborn, which is only a tissue mass called a fetus.

The are at least two real dichotomies contained in this issue:

First, one side argues that when a human egg is fertilized, it is a human being; the other side argues that the product of fertilization until birth is just a tissue mass a fetus is only a potential human being and has no right to life unless the mother grants it.

Second, one side argues that if the woman makes the choice to have unprotected sexual relations, all choices for the woman have been depleted, with the exception made by some for incest and rape; the other side argues that the woman has the inherent right to choose whether to carry any pregnancy to the stage of birth.

The Judeo-Christian who believes the Bible would have to say that God recognizes a human being at the moment of conception. Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." This philosophy would equate killing a child in the womb at any point from conception to the murder of an adult or a young child.

Ardent supporters of abortion support the act even to the moment of actual birth, as demonstrated in the act called "partial-birth" abortion. Once born, only a radical few would support population control by the murder of children who have been born.

The real dichotomies in this argument are seldom discussed; the argument becomes one of being "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" (for the woman). If the national debate were presented in terms of the real dichotomies of the issue, then standards could be established and the argument could be settled. Legislation could be passed which declares the status of the unborn child under the constitution and which would delineate the circumstances under which a pregnancy could be terminated. If special interests are removed from seriously

Influencing the argument: those whose personal income depends on the provision of abortion services; those who see abortion as the "holy grail" of feminism; those who wish to enforce by law their religious beliefs on others; then the nation can make political, philosophical, moral, ethical and social (PPMES) judgments on this controversy.

This would require, however, that women would be forced to accept personal responsibility for the choices they make concerning sexual relations in which they engage without the benefit of birth control devices or medication. If that legislation also provided a penalty for the man engaging in sexual relations with a woman who is not protected from pregnancy, enforced by the use of DNA testing, then personal responsibility for both parties could be enforced.

It is the conflict between the new religions and Judeo-Christians that drives this false dichotomy. It appears that it is the new religion adherents who do not wish to discuss this issue in terms of whether an unborn child is a human being or a piece of tissue. This has led to some obviously conflicting views by those who support abortion but who will prosecute an individual on murder charges who kills a child in the mother's womb in an automobile accident or during the commission of another crime.

Sexual Promiscuity

The false dichotomy: one side argues that women should be just as free as men to engage in sexual activity and that what two consenting adults do in their private lives is of not concern of anyone else; the other side argues that adultery is a violation of morality and the law of God.

There are at least two real dichotomies contained in this issue:

First, one side might argue that there is a real price to be paid in human relations in general for promiscuity the loss of esteem for the other sex; the lack of commitment in marriage; broken homes with confusing situations for children and a general lack of stability in the institution of the family whether or not the practice is accepted by most of society and whether the two people involved are consenting adults; the other side might argue that no harm is done by promiscuity; that when two people are married who have experience, they better know what they're getting.

Second, one side might argue that men have always been promiscuous and there's now no reason, with the availability of birth control, why women should not enjoy sex with any partners whom they choose; the other side might argue that although "higgimus, higgimus, men are polygamous; hoggomous, hoggomous, women are monogamous" has been the old adage, men who accepted responsibility for their own actions have always been true to their wives and families and it was just the "roustabouts" and emotionally unstable men who were promiscuous.

Since the advent of widely available birth control pills and mechanical devices in the 1960's along with the popularization of the views of feminists about the same time, the sense of personal responsibility for one's sexual activity has been changed. Before birth control and the change of ideals, having sex outside of marriage carried the real risk of penalty. Beside the general condemnation of society of promiscuity, there was the possibility of having to accept the responsibility of caring for and raising a child conceived in that sexual act. People were less prone to have sexual relations with an individual with whom they had not considered at least the possibility of a long-term relationship.

Women, especially, were at risk for having to either give up their child for adoption or for having the sole responsibility for rearing a child. The latter point was naturally resented and one can speculate that this lack of acceptance of responsibility for their actions on the part of men fomented a resentment that carried over into their relationships even after birth control was widely available. The sins of the fathers are passed along to succeeding generations is a paraphrase of a concept from the body of Judeo-Christian law.

Republican vs. Democrat

The false dichotomies: Republicans are for the "rich"; Democrats represent the "working man".

The real dichotomy: At the present moment, a majority of Republicans advocate lower taxes and a smaller central government with more control of things at the State or local level; Democrats advocate large, "compassionate" government which offers programs to mend social ills such as inequalities of wealth, inadequate education, racism, poverty and lack of healthcare coverage.

Since the 1930's and especially since the 1960's, the Federal Government has spent trillions of dollars redistributing wealth, trying to improve education, end racism and poverty and to provide retirement funds through the Social Security program and healthcare though the Medicare/Medicaid programs. Sixty years later, US citizens are burdened with the highest taxes in our history, education is declining at almost every level, racism and poverty are more widespread than ever, virtually no one can depend on Social Security alone for retirement income, and 40 million Americans have little or no healthcare coverage.

The failure of centralized planning has been demonstrated the world over with the collapse of the Soviet Union and capitalist systems being implemented in almost every nation including former communist nations like China.

Why do communism, socialism and central planning fail? Their failure is due to the naïveté of those proponents of these systems concerning basic human nature that can be changed neither by legislation nor oppression.

Just as in the rest of the animal kingdom, most human beings are not comfortable until a "pecking order" is established. This search for one's place in the "pecking order" results in a hierarchical system in almost every human organization. Hierarchy may be necessary for success in some organizations such as the military where success depends on instant obedience of orders and an adherence of hundreds or even thousands in a military plan. Its use in any organization almost always results in corruption of the leaders and the followers. Only by maintaining a continually changing civilian in control of the military does the military of the United States minimize corruption.

In the larger picture of individual development, participation in hierarchy results in loss of individual freedom. When the goal of an individual's life is the utmost development of individual potential, hierarchy stands boldly in the way of success. The development of individual potential throughout society is the only thing that truly advances that society.

The reason Communism is an abject failure as proven by the failure of socialist governments throughout the world is that Communism is second only to totalitarianism in enforcing hierarchy. Yet communism is worse than totalitarianism because Communism is not only totalitarian in nature but is dishonest. If a king, or tsar, or other high potentate has absolute control over government and the means of production, that person is recognized for what he is. Communism hides behind the naive concept of rule by the will of the people. Human nature will not allow this to truly happen but inserts a relatively small group of people (the Communist party) who decide what is the "will of the people". This small group gives its allegiance to the strongest member of the group and until someone can knock this individual from his seat of power that person serves as "king".

Today, those who still believe in the tenets of Marx must resort to subterfuge. They have seen the theories of Marx proven wrong in the Soviet Union, China and everywhere else people have tried to install real Communism, but they still are true believers. They rationalize the failures of these systems by claiming that the people who wound up as leaders somehow failed to follow the "truth". They believe that if only the "right" people (meaning themselves) could be placed in charge, the system would work. Today, they try the new paradigm of "triangulation": taking parts from communism, parts from totalitarianism and the rest from economic capitalism and combining them into regulatory socialism. The means of production are ostensibly left in the hands of private ownership while government controls the means of production through regulation and taxation. This system, too, will fail because the hierarchical system remains in control.

So far, only two systems of government have resulted in relative freedom of the individual: truly benevolent dictatorship and economic capitalism under a small federal government. Only the latter has existed beyond a few years prevalently in the form of the governments of the United States and Great Britain

These three hundred years of relative freedom of the individual in Western Society have resulted in the greatest advancements in society in human history. The statutory criminalization of slavery; the statutory proclamation of equality of all people under the law; and personal freedom to pursue almost any goal have never before been available to the "common man".

Why has society advanced under this form of government? Because, even with the flaws inherent in any government formed by humans, freedom from hierarchical control is greater that ever before in history.

Although employment most often comes to citizens from a hierarchical company, the individual is free to leave one company and join another, or to form his own company. The free exchange of ideas mandated by the Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution of the United States, mostly supported by the U. S. court system and now being propagated world wide by the Internet, allows the common people to learn what possibilities through freedom are available to them for the first time in human history.

Judeo-Christian Religion vs. Science

The false dichotomy: one side argues that the Bible is a history of the world, showing that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that science is a godless, atheist process which wants to destroy religion; the other side argues that evolution is the answer to the origin of man and that science is the only accepted repository of "truth".

The real dichotomies in this question are many:

First, one side might argue that the Bible is not intended to be a history of the world, but is the story of the descendants of Abraham and demonstrates the relationship of God with man along with giving man laws and guidelines and examples of the path to true happiness and satisfaction in life by explaining the real purpose of man; the other side might argue that the Bible is just another book containing fables and is not to be considered a source of authority on anything.

Second, one might argue that the Bible and the traditions of Christianity are all based upon and concern the incarnation of God upon the earth in the person of Jesus who gave us a route to salvation and a better life beyond this life; the other side might argue whether Jesus ever really existed and whether the accounts of His life are to be believed and whether what He did and said is of any relevance to us today.

Third, one might argue that the principles of the Bible and the life of Jesus as described in the Bible have been proven over the generations by the very development of society based upon those principles including the fact that Western Culture (based largely on those principles) has led to a vast improvement in the lives of every person under the system; the other side might argue that while some of those principles have been proven to be efficacious to society, that they did not originate with the Bible or Jesus but have evolved as a result of trial an error over the centuries and that much of the standards set down by Judeo-Christian religion are restrictive of personal freedom.

There are many other real dichotomies in this issue to numerous for this essay but which would prove to be of importance in guiding the development of society in the future.

Race

The false dichotomy: one side argues all people should be treated equally regardless of race; the other side argues that cultural heritage must be preserved while "affirmative action" should be used to redress past oppression.

There are two real dichotomies in racial issues:

The first is that one side might argue that government should enforce policies that redress past evils committed because of racism; the other side would argue that government attempts at redressing past evils committed by past generations by penalizing the current generation on racial basis is unconstitutional.

The second is that one side might argue that people from every race and culture should be able to preserve their racial heritage; the other side would argue that the common heritage of a nation is what binds its people together in times of crises and the feeling that we are all part of one nation is what makes for a stable society.

It seems very strange that advocates of multiculturalism seem to feel that only racial minorities should be proud of their heritage. The majority peoples of America come from a Western Culture that has brought about the greatest amount of personal freedom for individuals that has ever existed in history. Never before through the annals of time has a racial group which was at one time slaves been assimilated into that society with the same rights and privileges as citizens of the former slave holding race. Not only that, but also no other society or government before the United States has deliberately made itself a refuge for oppressed peoples of all races and from all countries.

Advocates from the political left wing seem intent on destroying any sense of patriotism that might reside in minority races in the United States. Many intellectuals, especially among the ranks of teachers at the college level, seem intent upon demonizing Western Civilization as a way of maintaining the cultural heritage of African or Spanish descent.

While there are no races or people whose ancestors have not done many things which in hindsight can be condemned, it is the overall, long-term heritage by which a culture or race should be judged. While European settlers badly mistreated the natives of the Americas, in the areas of the United States, there was much less ethnic cleansing that what went on in Central and South America and, for that matter, much less than what is going on in many areas of the world today such as in several countries in Africa and the Baltic States. The treatment of Native Americans compared to the holocausts that have gone on in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Germany and China is a pale comparison indeed. In those countries, millions of victims were slain by their own racial and ethnic groups.

Racial discrimination can never be eliminated by the passage of laws. Such ingrained attitudes will only be changed over many years with all races learning to respect other human beings and will not be changed by legislation and litigation; in fact, those things often exacerbate the problem rather than relieving it causing all parties to sublimate the problem and to resent the intrusion.

Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture

The false dichotomy: One side argues that "sexual orientation" is determined by genetics; the other side argues that homosexuality is a "sin".

There are at least two real dichotomies in this issue:

First, one side argues that "sexual orientation" is determined by genetics; the other side argues that homosexuality is learned behavior.

Second, one side argues that homosexuality is a perversion and that such perversion should be minimized; the other side argues that homosexuality is just an "alternate lifestyle" and should be treated no different than heterosexuality.

No greater change has taken place in Western Civilization in the past 25 years that the prevailing attitudes and acceptance by the major media, academia and much of the public concerning homosexuality. Prior to this time, society barely tolerated homosexuals and then only when the homosexual kept his or her proclivities private.

Today, researchers seeking to prove that "sexual orientation" is genetic in nature are frantically searching for and doing studies that uphold that perspective. These seem to be mainly in the following areas: studying twins (identical and non-identical, the former have identical DNA structure, the latter having a different DNA structure); studying the structure of the hypothalamus or other parts of the brain to find common size or structure among homosexuals which is different for similar heterosexuals; animal studies, in which perceived sexual orientation is stimulated by creating lesions or other abnormalities in the brains of the test animals. Most of these studies that appear to support the idea of “natural” homosexuality fail to be duplicated or to even produce scientifically reliable results.

Under intense pressure from homosexual groups, the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1973 removed "homosexuality" from its list of psychological disorders. In 1990, the APA declared that attempting to "convert" homosexuals to heterosexuals "caused more harm than good". The APA claims more than 130,000 members including professional practitioners and students.

Today, the APA has gone even further in urging acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" stating in its official publication, "Sexual orientation is one of the four components of sexuality and is distinguished by an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectionate attraction to individuals of a particular gender. The three other components of sexuality are biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and social sex role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior). Three sexual orientations are commonly recognized: homosexual, attraction to individuals of one's own gender; heterosexual, attraction to individuals of the other gender; or bisexual, attractions to members of either gender. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only)."

The field of psychology is descended from the teachings of Sigmund Freud. As discussed earlier, the religion spawned by Freud is one that pays close attention to the supposed inner workings of the mind giving credence to "feelings" more than to material reality. Thus the APA can say that "gender identity" the "sense of being male or female" is a component of sexuality as is "adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior."

Webster's defines "sexuality" as "the quality or state of being sexual". "Sex" is defined as "either of two divisions of organisms distinguished as either male or female." "Perversion" is defined as being "an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus".

With their present statements, the APA attempts to sweep away the meaning of words and the centuries old standards by which perversion was determined. The primary purpose of sexual activity is procreation. This is true in all living beings including human beings. But the religion established by Freud seeks to change the primary purpose of sexual activity into the search for physical pleasure thus making any activity that produces pleasure "normal". This circuitous logic is necessary in the attempt to force public acceptance of homosexuality as "normal".

There is a natural tie-in to the other three religions of Marxism, relativism and Darwinism. Marxism denies the existence of "natural" laws or "higher powers"; relativism would have any activity justified under certain circumstances and the merits of that activity to be determined by the participants at the time; Darwinism seeks also to exclude any input from revealed laws. It is only this confluence of religious thought that has brought Western Society to the point of considering anal and oral sex with others of the same gender to be "normal". There is no possibility of procreation from homosexual activity.

Something is wrong with this logic and the fact is that this philosophy is based on false dichotomies. To consider whether homosexuality is "normal" and something to be approved by society, the argument must be based on true dichotomies and then the decision made.

Feminism

The false dichotomy: one side argues that women should have equal pay for equal work and all privileges available to one sex should be available to the other; the other side argues that men are oppressors and tend to subjugate women therefore, women should have the right to abortion on demand and should have "affirmative action" available to redress past evils.

The real dichotomies in this issue are many:

First, one side could argue that men and women are not really equal in many areas; the other side might argue that it is the culture and environment that keeps men and women from being exactly equal in all areas.

Second, one side could argue that the institution of family has done a pretty good job of stabilizing and civilizing cultures for thousands of years as recorded in history; the other side might argue that the past is unimportant when considering the "enlightenment" of the present age which sees families as two men or two women or even several from both sexes as "family" and that such families are just as adept at maintaining society as the traditional family.

Third, one side might argue that the fact that women bear children and that men provide a stable environment for that birth and subsequent child-rearing and that this preserves both the species and the culture is a fact of nature; the other side might argue that today's women are no longer in need of that stability and should be free to refrain from bearing children or even close association with men if they so choose and that such activity would have no deleterious effect on society.

Fourth, one side might argue that certain professions and duties are better performed by one sex or the other and that integrating the other sex into those occupations and duties causes detriment to their performance; the other side might argue that such logic is only the result of cultural bias and that government should mandate that either sex should be free to attempt any profession or duty that they choose.

The often unspoken fact is that men and women are different: men are stronger in their upper bodies on the average; men cannot bear children; women are innately better at nurturing young children; over thousands of years, there has been a division of labor based upon the innate differences in men and women; in order to perpetuate the species, men have been the ones who fought and died in wars leaving the sex able to bear children at home; women and men innately think in different planes and in different manners; within the institution of families, the fact that a man was expected to provide for and protect his woman and his children gave every man a sense of responsibility and stability and gave the woman and children some measure of security and stability. The blurring of sexual lines in today's society has had the net effect of confusing both sexes.

Ending The False Dichotomies

If we can learn to deal with false dichotomies, there are many areas where life can be improved: education, government, marriage, interpersonal relationships, racial harmony, religion, science, relations between the sexes and in general the total quality of life. If we can improve our ability to communicate, and to honestly address the issues in our society, then we can live in peace and truly understand one another.

No one is immune to the attractiveness of simplistic answers to complex problems.

The problems in any society can be either lived with or dealt with as long as the members of the society can communicate freely. Differences of opinion are good and public and private arguments over ideology, morals, ethics and ways of doing things often lead to finding answers and solutions. But clear, true communication is predicated on clearly understanding both what one believes and what the adversary believes. Anything, which prevents understanding what the opponent to one’s ideas believes, destroys real communication.

This is what has happened in Western Civilization: by the establishment of false dichotomies in the arguments over ideology, morality, ethics, religion, philosophy and even methods of attaining goals, opposing parties in Western Civilization no longer communicate. They only state the premises of their beliefs and ideas over and over with no real comparison to opposing beliefs and ideas. Establishing false dichotomies in arguments completely halts communication.

As a result of the rise into predominance of the four religions or ideologies (Darwinism, Freudian psychology, Marxism and Relativism) in the latter half of the 20th Century essentially since the late 1950's, the people of the United States have been divided by government programs, makers-makers, intellectuals and the media into various groups and these groups have found themselves being unable to communicate: black vs. white, young vs. old, children vs. parents, rich vs. poor, labor vs. management, women vs. men, homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, liberals vs. conservative, Democrats vs. Republicans, the East and West Coast metropolitan areas vs. rural areas and the rest of the country, religious vs. secular, etc. The list seems endless.

As we look around at our society and see the disparate, competing groups and their coverage in the media, there is tremendous posturing and emotion but very little communication. There seems to be no common ground, no room for "give and take", and no room for any compromise or agreement.

The only peaceful way to solve problems in any venue is though valid communication. The ongoing "culture war" must be stopped: first, with a "cease-fire" and a truce with both sides respecting the right of the other side to disagree and the acknowledgment that no one has all the answers; second, with establishing certain baselines of communication which will prevent the political, philosophical, moral, ethical and social communication, conversation, debate and communication from being established on false dichotomies; and third, real communication in a rational, peaceful setting must begin among private citizens, institutions and within government so that solutions may be found through thoughtful compromise and agreement.

This is not an easy task; it may, in fact, be impossible. After all, most wars do not stop until one side is defeated. That may be the case in the current culture war. We should realize that in this, as in all wars, nobody really wins; everybody loses. We can only hope that America and the rest of the word survive this one intact.

© 1999 by
This article or any part of this article may NOT be reproduced in any fashion other than copying from the Internet for one person's use only or excerpts copied for discussion in the press or in reply to the author without the express written consent of the author. All other rights reserved.

Return to essays menu

Return to site index page

Or click “back” on your browser to return to the previous page