I'd like to add another call for the Real Life section of this trope to be removed. It's too much just Flame Bait, and some of the examples are pretty iffy in that technically, yes, there is a third option but often they really amount to de facto support of one of the sides due to how politics works in the US.
The scene in "Happy Days" where Joanie models the extremely risqué prom dress for Papa Cunningham so he'll approve the slightly risqué dress Joanie actually wants to wear - is that an example of False Dichotomy, or more of a Gambit? I couldn't find a matching gambit :/
Hide / Show Replies
A false dichotomy is two extremes being presented as the only options. This doesn't sound like a false dichotomy at all, so I say kill it with fire.
There are some entries in the Real Life folder that seem to be playing a dangerous game like the evolution, religion and sexuality topics. Everyone is being mostly civil so far, but I went ahead and removed an entry relating to eugenics... let's not let it get to the point where admins have to add a 'no real life examples please' limit. If it seems like it'll start a riot this isn't the place for it.
Hide / Show Replies
Why not? This trope is pretty flaime-y, methinks a No Real Life Examples Please note wouldn't hurt.
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
I am also preoccupied by the amount of ZCE in the Real Life section, and that a more context-rich section would quickly become flame bait.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Good points. If someone petitioned to have the real tab shut down I wouldn't disagree. Looking closer at it there's just... so much that could go wrong, and even right here in the discussions at least one topic is already threatening to become a public embarrassment. This isn't supposed to be a forum, it's supposed to be a fun wiki for examples of trope usage
- Even if Evolution could be disproven, Creationism would not automatically take its place (Creationism comes up a lot in the fallacy listings, doesn't it?).
I would like to point out that in all technicality, evolution is still a theory. There are actually some holes in the process of it (I know because my own public school biology teacher admitted this to me), and it can be said that we may never know for certain just how the world came to be. However, this doesn't mean that the only other option is creationism (which, I've noticed the word "creationism" is the preferred term for those who oppose the idea, but supporters prefer "intelligent design,"), but that we need a new theory.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself, I just wanted to point out that the idea of "proving evolution wrong" isn't Beyond the Impossible.
Hide / Show Replies
"The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[168][169] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",[170] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.[171]" — Wikipedia's "List of common misconceptions"
Evolution keeps being called a theory. But I can't see where it rises to the level. I don't see where it has been tested or is even testable. To me, it looks like another dogma. Even scientists are human. They can slip into dogma.
I can answer that by PM if you like, or you can post in this thread
for wider discussion. However, this page isn't the place for it — tropers, please don't have the evolution/creationism debate here.
... there's been a lot of tests to determine evolution. Because you don't pay attention to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Either way, it's utterly irrelevant to this since the point of the entry is that there's a common False Dichotomy between Evolution and Creationism. This isn't the place for a pointless argument about religion, it's the place to discuss the trope.
Edited by 156.33.241.5 Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
- Even if Evolution could be disproven, Creationism would not automatically take its place (Creationism comes up a lot in the fallacy listings, doesn't it?).
I would like to point out that in all technicality, evolution is still a theory. There are actually some holes in the process of it (I know because my own public school biology teacher admitted this to me), and it can be said that we may never know for certain just how the world came to be. However, this doesn't mean that the only other option is creationism (which, I've noticed the word "creationism" is the preferred term for those who oppose the idea, but supporters prefer "intelligent design,"), but that we need a new theory.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself, I just wanted to point out that the idea of "proving evolution wrong" isn't Beyond the Impossible. However, it's curious to note that creationism being proven wrong seems to infer that evolution is right. Hm...
Hide / Show Replies
How does any of what you've said contradict the way the example is written? The "even" merely implies that it's unlikely for evolution to be disproven, and it is (even if our current understanding of its processes changes, the underlying idea that species diverge due to progressive mutation is very unlikely to go away).
This isn't a place for debates, it's for discussing the content of the page. I'll admit the Flame Bait-y parenthesis could go, though.
Edited by johnnye
I'm not sure about the Dragons: Riders of Berk example. Yes, the episode could possibly focus more on the underlying problem being that Snotlout's dad is being unreasonable, but I'm not sure that gives Hiccup more options; it's not like he has the power to improve Spitelout's parenting.