I don't expect intellectual stimulation from television advertisement, but sometimes the unexpected still happens. While watching an advertisement for Gardasil, I was struck by the way the advertising copy clung heroically to a variation of my favorite logical error.

Actually, my favorite error is the excluded middle, or the false dichotomy, which I shall discuss in a moment. Gardasil's advertising copy did not commit that specific error, but did indulge in a variant of it. In the ad one of the consumers of Gardasil explains her choice to be vaccinated. "I chose Gardasil", she incorrectly explains, "because I want to do everything to avoid HPV."

Yes, incorrectly. Had she truly meant what she said, she would not need Gardasil, as abstinence is clearly within the scope of "everything" and is clearly a quite effective way to avoid HPV, or any sexually transmitted disease. Now, I am not saying anything about the ethics of Gardasil, the need for abstinence, anything in that realm, so please no comments on those. All I am saying is that were she honestly doing "everything" to avoid HPV, Gardasil would be sort of "belt and suspenders" type solution, as abstinence would be more than enough, so Gardasil would be redundant.

I think it far more likely the advertisers were unconsciously committing a logical fallacy akin to the false dichotomy, by silently excluding options. In this case, I think the thought was "abstinence is out of the question, so doing everything is using condoms and Gardasil". Which, as I mentioned earlier, is just a slight variation on the false dichotomy.

The false dichotomy or excluded middle, for those who never took logic, or were lucky enough to do so but have since forgotten, is a logical error wherein two choices are presented as if they covered the entire range of options, while in reality other options exist which are silently ignored. "Is he white or black" would be a good example, as there are obviously racial groups outside of those two categories. Or "are you Democrat or Republican", for the same reason. And, while these examples are pretty obvious in their false either-or choices, when properly presented, and used subtly enough, the false dichotomy can be a powerful means of smuggling assumptions into an argument. A number of bad arguments are founded on the false dichotomy.

Let me provide one example. It is hardly the worst of them, but it is one I ran into recently, so it is fresh in my mind.

When arguing with proponents of the FairTax, I often hear the argument "So, you don't want the FairTax, then you must really like the current system." Perhaps not in those words exactly, but anyone who has even heard a debate over the FairTax has surely heard the same. The problem is that this assumes there are simply two options, full acceptance of the FairTax or approval of the current system.

Another variation is a little more subtle, but based on the same error. When an objection is raised about a particular feature of the FairTax, the response is not to disprove the objection, but to show how the current system performs even worse in that regard. As with the previous argument, this only works if one assumes the only choices are the FairTax and the current system. If there are other alternatives, then it does not matter if the FairTax is better than what we have, it could still be problematic.

Now, not all who argue this way are trying to deceive. Many who suggest this false dichotomy really see the FairTax as the only possible tax reform. But there are others who are not so honest. The only reason they embrace these false dichotomies (the FairTax or the current system, retreat in Iraq or decades of occupation,  etc.)  is to steer argument away from uncomfortable positions.  It is not their intent to honestly argue the topic, but to force their view upon others. By pretending the two options they present are the only possible alternatives, they manage to avoid having to defend their choice against the alternatives they excluded.

It can be a very persuasive tool in the right hands, but that makes it no less deceptive. Just because an option has been excluded form argument does not make it disappear from reality. And winning arguments does not mean that one actually knows the truth, especially when such rhetorical tricks are the sole reason for victory.

POSTSCRIPT

I wrote this rather late last night, but the first draft was just a mess, as it included a long conversation about the Iraq War false dichotomy as well, and it just got bogged down in details. I rewrote it even later in the evening, but didn't publish it as I was too tired to decide if I made any sense. I can now see it isn't bad, though I am glad I waited as it was rife with typos thanks to the hour.

I did omit the Iraq part in this version, as that really needs an essay of its own. But that omission makes this seem like another FairTax diatribe. That was not my intent, but it appears to be the end result of my editing.

UPDATE

I just noticed exactly how tired I was, as the title for the revised version had a typo in it. I generally try to avoid misspellings in the title at the very least. However, the original title had been "Gardasil, the FairTax and the Conflict in Iraq". When I changed the content that no longer made sense, so the title became "Gardasil and Logical Errors" or, as I spelled it around 2 AM, "Gardasil and Loigcal Errors".