Chocolatey Goodness And the Either Or Fallacy

Today I wish to consider for your perusal a fallacy which characteristically operates under one of two assumed names. The more common appellation remains the "either-or" fallacy; less commonly spock-types might name it the "false disjunction." And I think it best to illustrate this little pest by the use of a chocolatey learning device. This tends to keep the attention of most Americans, and not a few Europeans.

God bless the Dutch, they have provided the chocolate (historically) for this illustration (they discovered the cacao bean while exploring in Brazil in the early 1500's; some genius -- we know not just who -- decided to mix the crushed bean powder with butter and sugar, giving us today's illustration.). Later the swiss added milk to the brew to give us - you guessed it -- milk chocolate.

Suppose one were to affirm the following indirect form of this fallacy -- most conversations do not package the fallacies for you ever-so-neatly; you must hunt them down:

(1) We all need energy in order to survive. (2) Chocolate is a form of caloric energy. (3) Therefore, we all need chocolate to survive.

This is an implied form of the either-or fallacy, which pretends only two logically possible options in situations (logical situations) where more than two options actually obtain. The first premiss we will consider non-controversial, since people observably do eventually shrivel up if they do not eat. But the above syllogism assumes that no other forms of edible food exist. What about locusts and honey, or broiled fish and honeycomb?

In other words, the conclusion assumes that either you eat chocolate or else you starve. While line 2 merely stipulates that chocolate is but one way to obtain the energy one needs to survive, the conclusion pretends that it reads "chocolate is the ONLY form of energy by which one might survive. But other food options do of course exist -- like gummy worms, pizza and McDonald's french fries. You could -- I am told -- even survive for a short stint on some kinds of tree bark, but I don't think it tops anyone's favorite snacks list. And I can only assume that it makes for difficult flossing.

But here the syllogism might simply cross one's lips in an ordinary conversation, so you have to develop a sharp ear, and run through your mind the possibilities of just where the problem may actually lie when you hear it. One of the most important attributes a good apologist must develop is the refined ear -- excellent listening skills. A good memory really helps too, since this will enable you to recall the earlier statements a debate opponent has made, that you might cross reference them with his or her more recent affirmations.

In this case, the conclusion simply does not follow (the Latin "non-sequitur" describes this problem) from the premisses. It assumes a total expansion of proposition 2 to cover the entire range of the category "food energy options," when in fact it is a very lowly subset of that extensive category. The list could be enlarged greatly. Hence the term "either-or" to describe this error.

Finally, we must carefully avoid judging too swiftly in some cases where a disjunct (either this is true or else that must be) may describe accurately the logical situation in question. Sometimes there are only two real options. Consider the following claims: birds are either mammals or else they are not mammals. This volcano is either active or else it is inactive. Dolphins are either fish or else they are cetaceans (this assumes we do not mean a Miami football team).

HOMEWORK. Yes I typed the "H" word.

As a project that would greatly enhance your skills in identifying this error, you might try constructing with your students five examples of legitimate disjunctions -- if they are younger use animal categories so they can learn a little biology or zoology (this way you get the 2 birds, one scone effect -- no, I meant "scone" -- some scones are stale enough to do the job easily). And then compile a list of five disjunctive statements that have other real options, affirmations which illustrate today's noted fallacy.

Now would be a good time to pour yourself a cup of hot chocolate so you can live to study another day. And don't forget the scone. I recommend blueberry.