Dichotomies exist in theory and in syllogistic semantics; they may or may not exist in reality. I have found very few concepts that involve only two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive categories. Someone wrote, “There are two groups of people, those who divide people into two groups, and those who do not.” Usually, something that is proposed as a dichotomy is an oversimplification. Two things offered as antonyms are just that, and do not satisfy the requirement of jointly exhaustive. Questions of religion, politics, and philosophy are not binary; they do not fit the electronic paradigm of one or zero. When we rightly interpret a word, idea, or theory, then either can be stated in juxtaposition to everything that is not that entity. That is then a valid dichotomy. A and B do not make a valid dichotomy; the designations A and not-A satisfy the definition.
Most frequent among this fallacy is the false dilemma. Of this, someone wrote, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.” Metaphorically this is often expressed as “between a rock and a hard place.” An option that is obviously undesirable is made less offensive when a similarly painful phenomenon if offered as the only alternative. This is often used as a referendum of subjectivity rather than a valid choice. The false dilemma provides a superficial method for expression of affinity or aversion without the immediacy of a choice, or logical comparison.
In the fields of philosophy, we speak of thesis and antithesis, both of which are usually too speculative to constitute a dichotomy. The fields of politics and religion are more easily expressed, accurately or not, in terms of accepted mutual exclusion. For example, some word combinations constitute a dichotomy by simple definition, such secular and spiritual, citizen and non-citizen, member and non-member, legal and illegal. In religion we have defined this in “thou shall and thou shall not” from which we have designated sins as either commission or omission. However, this dichotomy is valid only within the parameters of specific religions, with a mutually accepted governing document, without contravening or conflicting jurisdictions.
In politics, in civil law, we specify legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. Either is a valid dichotomy within a singular legal framework. In reality, the stratification of state and federal laws, basic human rights, majority-based legislation, judicial review, and voter initiatives often create conflicting definitions of legal and illegal.
In the field of religion, we have found that moral and immoral do not constitute a predictable dichotomy, in that religion and morality have little correlation, and religious morality is not the same as secular morality. The same would be true of righteous and unrighteous which encompass and span a lifetime commitment; saved and lost are transitory conditions of repentance and forgiveness; saint and sinner are based on the preponderance of behavioral miscellany; and believer and non-believer relates to literal or symbolic acceptance of the incomprehensible.
Other fallacies come into play in false dichotomies. The anecdotal fallacy is a single narrative from which is derived inductive reasoning that the specific incident suggests a general or universal rule. Similarly, deductive reasoning assumes that the general law would apply to all specific examples.
Among the valid dichotomies is something called ontological inertia. We often refer to “un-ringing” a bell, or making something un-happen. The line of demarcation between past and present is a non-dimensional point in time. The past is not changed by the subjectivity of revisionist history; the future is continually elusive and incrementally irretrievable. In most options, the “road not taken” is lost in the dichotomy of life’s crossroads.
Part of our pitfalls of fallacious reasoning is our improper use of synonyms and antonyms. Words are intrinsically imprecise enough that synonyms are not easily fitted into an enclave of commonality. The same is true of the absolute exclusion of antonyms.
False dichotomies ignore or omit the philosophical middle ground. A valid dichotomy must have absolutes to define the mutually exclusive parts. Truth and fact are elusive, subject to interpretation and bias. Religion, which is based on faith, by its definition, is neither bound by fact or truth. Politics, which is based on referenda or preference, is also bound by neither fact nor truth.
A valid dichotomy requires a wall, real or ideological, a specific linear demarcation. In religion, politics, economics, and the arts we draw lines between affection and aversion, between the virtues and values we embrace and the evils and labels we reject.
As I read my facebook page and the reader comments to my blog entries, I seem to find dichotomies within my circle of friends. Politically, they seem to be defined in two mutually exclusive groups—those who like President Obama and those who do not like President Obama. In matters of religion, there are those who do not believe in God and those who believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. From this we are tempted, and must resist, the fallacious reasoning of assigning labels of derogation and labels of assumed virtuous designations. Individual affirmations of wisdom and morality and the prejudicial accusations of ignorance and evil are the things of which false dichotomies are contrived.
Bill Peach's Random Thoughts 