Fallacies (4) - false dichotomy (2)

False dichotomy* is the fallacy of presenting two alternatives when in fact more than two alternatives are available. If done deliberately, it is a form of rhetorical bullying. A more detailed definition is here.

Example of a false dichotomy

Rutgers University historian David Greenberg, in the New York Times, writes (requires login):

“Suddenly, after the aggressive, militaristic foreign policy of the Bush years, isolationism – a stance that rejects America’s leadership role in the world – is on the rise among Republicans.”

American author Justin Raimondo reacts:

“By posing a false choice between a hyperactive foreign policy and an ‘isolationist’ one, the War Party gets to argue as if they are the reasonable ones, and everyone else – in this case, most of the country – are marginal cranks.” (Emphasis in original.)

The Takeaway: In any formal writing or formal public speaking, be careful whenever you present an either-or choice. You may be overlooking additional alternatives, which is the fallacy of false dichotomy. False dichotomy can make you look like a fool or a bully. Your readers or listeners may call you on it.

Related: Fallacies (2) – cherry picking

See disclaimer.

*Also called false dilemma, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. More here. Dichotomy, from the Greek for cut in two, means division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions. More here.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (19) – Philip Roth

Here’s another good example of clear, concise writing. It’s from The Human Stain, by the American novelist Philip Roth (pictured). Reading this passage, you can easily imagine – almost feel and taste – the carefree and sensual life of a dairy cow:

“…the creamy-colored cows with the free-swinging, girderlike hips and the barrel-wide paunches and the disproportionately cartoonish milk-swollen udders, the unagitated, slow-moving, strife-free cows, each a fifteen-hundred-pound industry of its own gratification, big-eyed beasts for whom chomping at one extremity from a fodder-filled trough while being sucked dry at the other by not one or two or three but by four pulsating, untiring mechanical mouths – for whom sensual stimulus simultaneously at both ends was their voluptuous due. Each of them deep into a bestial existence blissfully lacking in spiritual depth: to squirt and to chew, to crap and to piss, to graze and to sleep – that was their whole raison d’être. [They enjoyed the] best of carnal everything, including savoring at their leisure mushy, dripping mouthfuls of their own stringy cud. Few courtesans have lived as well, let alone workaday women.”

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least 10 minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful, grown-up diction and the careless, infantile diction that besets us every day. If you would like a list of recommended writers and works, please email me at joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.

See disclaimer.

Enunciation (satire)

Here’s a humorous brief video about enunciation.

The Takeaway: Laugh. Enjoy life.

See disclaimer.

Quoting out of context

What does “quoting out of context” mean? It means either: (1) quoting with no context, or (2) quoting with the wrong context. Often, the lack of context or the presence of the wrong context changes the apparent meaning of the quotation.

Example of the first type of quoting out of context

A famous example of the first type (quoting with no context) is the old saying:

“Money is the root of all evil.”

Here is the original context of the quotation:

“But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (Holy Bible, King James Version, 1 Timothy, Chapter 6, Verses 9-10.)

When we see the original context, we immediately recognize that the writer was not condemning money per se, but the love (and therefore the misuse) of money.

Example of the second type of quoting out of context

Here is an example of the second type (quoting with the wrong context):

“Although selling at the lower end of what some analysts believed the company would go for, the Milan-based maker of Miu Miu handbags still raised $2.1 billion for a mere 16.5 percent of the company to grow its brand. Sex and the City may be relegated to running sanitized episodes in syndication, but company president and head designer Miuccia Prada figures there’s a boom somewhere and there are plenty of women needing expensive bags. ‘It’s where the future is,’ she told the Wall Street Journal.” (Boldface added.)

It sounds as if Ms. Prada were saying that the future is women buying expensive bags. But here’s the context of the quotation, from the original article (requires subscription) in The Wall Street Journal:

“Ms. Prada believes an IPO [initial public offering] in Hong Kong will help the family-owned company draw upon the dynamism of Asia and expose some members of her management team to a different culture.

“ ‘The whole idea of doing this here, for me, was exciting because it is where things are happening. It’s where the future is,’ she said.” (Boldface added.)

It’s clear that she was talking about the Asian market as the future.

The Takeaway: Whenever you quote something, consider carefully whether the quotation needs context to be intelligible to the reader. And if you decide to include context, be careful to select the right context.

See disclaimer.

Talking around a definition (3)

Talking around a definition is the act of volubly describing something in order to evade defining it. Talking around a definition is like the misdirection used by magicians; the writer distracts his readers, listeners or viewers so that they won’t notice that he has not defined his topic.

Talking around a definition is popular among four-flushers and charlatans, for obvious reasons. But most people who talk around a definition do it unintentionally. They do it because they are vague thinkers and careless writers.

Here’s a two-minute video that talks around a definition of sustainability.

Analysis

During the video, we heard that sustainability:

Is a “significant business strategy”
Is “changing how we do business”
Is “driven by” large and small companies
Is “rapidly becoming the market protocol”
Offers various advantages
Is “smart business”
Is “a competitive advantage”
Is “the new strategy”

So, in only two minutes, we heard eight claims about sustainability, but we did not hear a definition of sustainability.* Shouldn’t a company that presents itself as a sustainability expert be able to define sustainability?**

The Takeaway: Show respect and consideration for your readers, listeners or viewers. Define your topic, especially if it is new or complex. For your convenience, here’s a definition of definition: “Lexical definition specifies the meaning of an expression by stating it in terms of other expressions whose meaning is assumed to be known (e.g., a ewe is a female sheep).” Source: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia.

See disclaimer.

*Notice that the spokeswoman, the first time she says “sustainability” (at 00:19), puts a vocal question mark after it – hinting that, despite her generally confident delivery, she’s not sure what sustainability is, either.

**“The UN definition is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. What sustainability is, what its goals should be, and how these goals are to be achieved are all open to interpretation.” Source

Update, February 15, 2012: I noticed that the writer and editor Jeffrey A. Tucker offered this forthright definition of sustainability: “[R]olling back the advances of civilization by force.” Source

Placement of modifiers (14)

Careless placement of modifiers is a frequent cause of unclear (and annoying) writing. Don’t make your readers rely on interpretation or guesswork.

Example of the careless placement of a modifier

An article in the Los Angeles Times includes this sentence:

“Drivers who cause accidents in at least 50 cities can be billed for the police and firefighters who show up.”

The reader chuckles and thinks:

“I can’t imagine a driver actually becoming liable for one of these bills. He would have to have caused at least 50 accidents – at least one accident in each of 50 cities – before he would become liable. To reach this highly unlikely achievement, a driver would have to have survived 50 accidents; have made 50 auto repairs or replacements (or have stolen his cars); have paid high insurance premiums for driving without insurance; have probably spent time in prison for repeat offenses such as driving without a license, grand theft auto, reckless endangerment, assault and battery with a motor vehicle, and vehicular homicide.”

Then the reader may stop chuckling and think:

“Perhaps this fool meant to write, “In at least 50 cities, drivers who cause accidents can be billed for the police and firefighters who show up.”

The Takeaway: Place every modifier carefully. When a modifier is a phrase, construct the phrase carefully. Making your readers work harder to read a sentence than you worked to write it is indolent and rude. Your readers may resent you for it. Or, if you are lucky, they may only laugh at you.

See disclaimer.

Placement of modifiers (13)

Careless placement of modifiers is a frequent cause of unclear (and annoying) writing. Don’t make your readers rely on interpretation or guesswork.

Example of the careless placement of a modifier

An article in an online newsletter includes this sentence:

“Perhaps attempting to persuade its powerful neighbor to the North to do the same, last month, major revisions to Mexico’s immigration laws came into effect.”

The reader thinks:

“The phrase ‘Perhaps attempting to persuade its powerful neighbor to the North to do the same’ appears to modify the nearby noun revisions. But that wouldn’t be logical; revisions don’t attempt to do anything. So maybe it modifies Mexico’s. But wait, that’s a possessive. So, maybe the phrase modifies the verb came. But how could that be logical?”

Then the reader – if he is patient with careless writers – may think:

“I’ll mentally recast the sentence according to this writer’s most likely meaning: ‘Mexico made major revisions to its immigration laws, which came into effect last month. In making these revisions, Mexico may have been attempting to persuade its powerful neighbor to the North to do likewise.’ ”

The Takeaway: Place every modifier carefully. When a modifier is a phrase, construct the phrase carefully. If you make your readers work harder to read a sentence than you worked to write it, they may resent you for it. If you are lucky, they may only laugh at you.

See disclaimer.