January 28, 2006

The Delirious Democratic Dichotomy

Hatched by Dafydd

In debate, there is a fallacy called the false dichotomy. This is best exemplified by the structure of the argument made by creationists (or followers of "intelligent design," which amounts to the same thing as creationism): creationists cannot prove their thesis, because it involves a one-time intervention by an "intelligent watchmaker" that isn't being repeated anymore. So instead, they content themselves with trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory (which they insist upon calling "Darwinism," even while they reject, with puzzlement, the label "Wilberforcism" for their own ideas). The structural theory of the argument runs thus:

Since there are only two possible alternatives -- evolutionary theory as of this moment or creationism -- then if we can "prove" that current evolutionary theory doesn't explain every, single observed fact, then logically, people must reject current evolutionary theory and take up creationism instead.

The fallacy, of course, is in the first subordinate clause: it's demonstrably false that "there are only two possible alternatives." For one thing, if indeed a fact is found that contradicts current evolutionary theory, then under the rules of science, the theory would be changed to accomodate the new observation; that is the way science always proceeds (and far from being a "weakness" of science, that is its greatest strength).

The revised theory would then be a third alternative to the first two. Hence, the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

It took a while for the penny to drop, but I finally understand why the Democrats argue the way they do. And if you've read up to this point, then you're probably way ahead of me: clearly, it is now the Democrats who operate under the same false dichotomy: Democrats have convinced themselves that the only alternative to George Bush is Harry Reid... so if they can get voters to dislike Bush or his policies, the voters must necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

This is why Democrats have not bothered putting forth any unique plans, agenda, or platforms of their own. There is no need, since, in the Democratic playbook, attacking Bush and the Republicans is the same thing as putting forth a positive Democratic agenda... and it's much easier and lot more fun.

Alas for the Democrats, if this were really a good argument, then the American people should have flocked to the Democrats in 2004; in fact, Bush not only got more voters than he did in 2000, he got a larger share of all the votes, a clear majority this time. And 2000 was before the Democratic campaign had such success in demonizing the president. More tellingly, Bush in 2004 got more votes than the Republicans got in 2002, when Bush's approval rating was still sky high from the 9/11 effect. Clearly, souring on Bush does not equate with supporting the Democrats.

Yet this year, they plan to run, once again, on the platform "we're not Republicans, and we hate Bush." Whoever is their nominee in 2008, his primary argument will doubtless be "I am the anti-Bush -- whatever Bush did I will undo, whatever he prevented I will promote and applaud." They may as well change their name to the Gainsayer Party.

Or the Kramer party. There was an episode of Seinfeld when a man collapsed from some medical ailment in Jerry's apartment; Jerry (I think) said, "quick, elevate his feet to get blood to his head!" Whereupon a hysterical Cosmo Kramer immediately shouted, "no, elevate his head to get blood to his feet!" That's Reid and Pelosi, on a nutshell.

The problem with this approach is, of course, just the same as with the creationists' argument: Bush and Reid are not the only two alternatives. And just as the response of evolutionary theory to a fact that doesn't fit is not to throw out the fact, but rather to remake the theory so that it does take that fact into account... so too is the most natural Republican response to voter rejection of some of Bush's agenda to remake the GOP agenda in ways different from those of George W. Bush, but still consonant with Republicanism.

This November, scores of Republican senators and representatives will agree with their constituents that Bush's proposals on X, Y, and Z issues won't work -- but will offer a different, yet still Republican-based proposal for dealing with them instead. If Bush is wise, he will embrace as many of these as he can, in order to meet more of his goals, albeit by different means.

And in 2008, not just the Democrats but also the Republicans will be running an anti-Bush campaign, to some extent. George Allen and John McCain will each be saying, anent some issues, "Bush's goals were laudable, but his specific policies failed... and here is how I will go about achieving those same goals differently." It will be a powerful argument, dashing Democratic hopes that as the American people turn against Bush (mostly because of false accusation), they will necessarily flip towards the Democratic Left.

The American voter has clearly demonstrated over the past few years that he thinks the Republican agenda is the worst one possible for the country... except for all the other parties' agendas. So it turns out, in the end, that the Republicans in Congress are no dumber than the American voter -- but the Democrats are.

Surprise, surprise, on the jungle cruise tonight.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 28, 2006, at the time of 5:31 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/444

Comments

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

I'm guessing, if we heard the name of the 2008 Republican Party presidential nominee--heard it right this minute--90% of us would say: "Who? I think I've heard that name before, but I can't place it..." The Democratic candidate will be well known to us, but not Hillary Clinton.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2006 9:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: radarbinder

"The fallacy, of course, is in the first subordinate clause: it's demonstrably false that "there are only two possible alternatives." For one thing, if indeed a fact is found that contradicts current evolutionary theory, then under the rules of science, the theory would be changed to accomodate the new observation; that is the way science always proceeds (and far from being a "weakness" of science, that is its greatest strength).
"

Sadly, the above indicates you aren't familiar with the science involved in the discussion. Evidence to disprove various aspects of the Postulation of Evolution (it isn't a theory, let alone a fact) is continually being presented. However, most adherents hold to it as much as a faith as they do a science, if not more so, and cannot bear to consider alternatives.

The above hissed in response by: radarbinder [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 28, 2006 11:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: napablogger

radar, your point does not invalidate Dafydd's. Whether evolution is held onto as a faith or a whatever, even if it is flat out wrong, does not necessarily mean that there for creationism is correct. That is the point.

The above hissed in response by: napablogger [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 29, 2006 1:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

As for the example, I see four possibilities:

1) Absolutely no "intelligent" intervention in Earth's evolution.
2) Some level of "non-divine" intelligent intervention in Earth's evolution.
3) Some level of "divine" intelligent intervention in Earth’s evolution.
4) Both 2 and 3.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 29, 2006 8:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: radarbinder

Napa, point taken. Disproving evolution in and of itself would not prove that God created.

The above hissed in response by: radarbinder [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 29, 2006 10:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: radarbinder

Napa, point taken. Disproving evolution in and of itself would not prove that God created.

The above hissed in response by: radarbinder [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 29, 2006 10:58 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved