False dilemma is a specific form of reasoning : despite the fact that it is based on a deductively valid argument form, it is rightly depicted as fallacy. A systematic exposition of false dilemma is missing in theoretical approaches to fallacies. This article formulates six criteria for a well-grounded exposition of a fallacy, suggesting also a systematic exposition of false dilemma. These criteria can be used to both explain, and categorise, the various false dilemma fallacies. The article introduces distinction between (...) four types of false dilemma : False quandary, Defeasible sound quandary, False obstruction and Defeasible sound obstruction. The types of criticism appropriate for each variant of false dilemma are suggested. Being able to discover false dilemma in situations when it is important to make good and free choices is a significant dimension of critical thinking. It may liberate us from accepting the consequences that necessarily follow from prearranged alternatives, when these are not the only alternatives possible. It may also liberate us from refraining from actions on the basis of obstructive disjunctive statements. In that respect, the faculty of critical thinking directed at uncovering reasoning based on false dilemma may also initiate the discovery of new alternatives, or discover the ways of unifying seemingly opposing alternatives. Thus, a well-developed ability to understand the tricky argumentative moves of false dilemma may be a good step towards initiating some features of creative thinking. (shrink)

We argue that Conces’ and Walters’ tool FM2.0 is valuable but does not show that false dilemma is a formal fallacy. The FM2.0 assumes an ambiguous use of the term ‘formal fallacy’, different from how the term is used in logic, and may show that any argument is a formal fallacy. Moreover, the FM2.0 is developed by using one type of false disjunctive syllogism. However, the adequate application of FM2.0 on false dilemma does not lead to an invalid augmented argument, (...) contrary to what is expected in FM2.0, even assuming the ambiguous use of the term ‘formal fallacy’. Résumé: Nous soutenons que l’outil FM2.0 de Conces et de Walters est utile mais ne démontre pas que le faux dilemme est un sophisme formel. Le FM2.0 suppose une utilisation ambiguë du terme « sophisme formel », différente de son utilisation en logique, et peut montrer que tout argument est un sophisme formel. De plus, le FM2.0 est développé en adoptant un type de faux syllogisme disjonctif. Cependant, l’application adéquate du FM2.0 au faux dilemme ne conduit pas à un argument augmenté non valide, contrairement à ce qui est attendu dans le FM2.0, même en supposant l’utilisation ambiguë du terme « sophisme formel ». (shrink)

_Abstract:_ We argue that Conces’ and Walters’ tool FM2.0 is valuable but does not show that false dilemma is a formal fallacy. The FM2.0 assumes an ambiguous use of the term ‘formal fallacy’, different from how the term is used in logic, and may show that any argument is a formal fallacy. Moreover, the FM2.0 is developed by using one type of _false disjunctive syllogism_. However, the adequate application of FM2.0 on _false dilemma_ does not lead to an invalid augmented (...) argument, contrary to what is expected in FM2.0, even assuming the ambiguous use of the term ‘formal fallacy’. _Résumé: _Nous soutenons que l’outil FM2.0 de Conces et de Walters est utile mais ne démontre pas que le faux dilemme est un sophisme formel. Le FM2.0 suppose une utilisation ambiguë du terme « sophisme formel », différente de son utilisation en logique, et peut montrer que tout argument est un sophisme formel. De plus, le FM2.0 est développé en adoptant un type de faux syllogisme disjonctif. Cependant, l’application adéquate du FM2.0 au faux dilemme ne conduit pas à un argument augmenté non valide, contrairement à ce qui est attendu dans le FM2.0, même en supposant l’utilisation ambiguë du terme « sophisme formel ». (shrink)

This article points out the relevance of the research on information seeking for argumentation theory. The process of evaluating argumentation presupposes diverse principles of argument classification and forms thus conflicting information needs. Following Taylor , we distinguish between Aristotelian classification and the prototype classification. We show how these classification kinds form the conflicting principles of information seeking providing at the same time a common ground for the dissent information seeking processes in evaluating argumentation.

This article points out the relevance of the research on information seeking for argumentation theory. The process of evaluating argumentation presupposes diverse principles of argument classification and forms thus conflicting information needs. Following Taylor , we distinguish between Aristotelian classification and the prototype classification. We show how these classification kinds form the conflicting principles of information seeking providing at the same time a common ground for the dissent information seeking processes in evaluating argumentation.

In the paper The Distinction Between False Dilemma and False Disjunctive Syllogism, by Taeda Tomić, Informal Logic vol. 41, No 4 (2021), pp. 607-639, there are typos in Figure 12, on page 630.

Since a clear account of the fallacy of false disjunctive syllogism is missing in the literature, the fallacy is defined and its three types are differentiated after some preliminaries. Section 4 further elaborates the differentia specifica for each of the three types by analyzing relevant argument criticism of each, as well as the related profiles of dialogue. After defining false disjunctive syllogisms, it becomes possible to distinguish between a false dilemma and a false disjunctive syllogism: section 5 analyzes their similarities (...) and section 6 explains their differences. (shrink)