Image talk:False dichotomy public transport.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a pattern of POV pushing via insertion of these images into articles by this editor. This particular one is also original research, the supporting text does not contain the argument mapping. See also [1], [2] and their uses.--Africangenesis 10:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"the supporting text does not contain the argument mapping" - You evidently do not understand the policy of no original research. Here is the original text containing the fallacy:

"Michael Duffy: Randal, what would you say about the hope of a city like Melbourne to increase transit usage from 8% to 15%? What chance do they have?

"Randal O'Toole: There's really two ways you can increase transit usage that much. One is to order all the employers to move all the jobs downtown because really it's not population density, it's the job density at the urban core. So, if Melbourne could somehow force at least 25% to 50% of the employers in the region to move their jobs downtown, that could increase transit ridership. The other way is to make people poor. If people are poor enough they won't be able to afford to drive. You can make people poor by driving up housing costs so that they can't afford transportation and living in homes. You can make people poor by driving up driving costs, by taxing cars far more than they're taxed today, and I'm talking about really, really high taxes, like $10 or $20 a gallon of petrol rather than the $2 or $3 or whatever is paid in Australia today. We look at Europe where taxes are $4 and $5 a gallon of petrol and that isn't enough to really drive down driving. People there are driving more and more and they're using transit less and less just like everywhere else."

The point of an argument map is to take informal logic contained within prose and make the argumentation explicit whilst being generous to the arguments and opinions expressed. - Grumpyyoungman01 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is missing the "It is not desirable" conclusion. While desirability is mentioned in the intro, there is no evidence that they were intending the construct you used it for. Your interpretation is original research, and in addition appears to be an attempt to discredit the show by using it as a bad example. There is no evidence in the transcript that the dichotomy is false, as a matter of practicality, it may be true. I take it that you think it is false?--Africangenesis 13:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"'It is not desirable' conclusion" - That whole transcript, not just the excerpt here, is all about how and why public transport is not desirable. Anywho it matters not a whit whether an argument map is OR or not. If need be I could remove any reference to an actual occurence, you cannot discredit an example of an argument such as this, or successfully have it put it through the deletion process on that basis. That said it does not contravene OR. "There is no evidence in the transcript that the dichotomy is false" - of course, if you use a fallacy - which is a pattern of reasoning which is usually or most commonly wrong - to support your conclusion, you need to make very sure that the particular fallacy you use is valid, and therefore legitimate. They make no such effort in the transcript.

"appears to be an attempt to discredit the show by using it as a bad example." - The argument here is that I combed a whole transcript and found the one example that would make them look bad. There are in fact at least half a dozen fallacies contained within that transcript. Perhaps you would like to tag this image as violation NPOV as well?

"There is no evidence in the transcript that the dichotomy is false, as a matter of practicality, it may be true." - As a matter of practicality it may be true. But the people on that radio show don't support it as being true with evidential reasons only with explanatory reasons, which means that they do not at all in the transcript attempt to persuade someone to believe the truth of the co-premises. If they did, then it still wouldn't be OR, but it would be a malicious misrepresentation of their argument. Grumpyyoungman01 23:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the uncritical acceptance of the dichotomy, is based on appeal to authority or on the dichotomy's superficial plausibility. But lack of iron-clad rigor on a radio show doesn't show that the dichotomy is false.--Africangenesis 00:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing, but I think I can kinda see what you're getting at. I will try uploading another version of the fallacy that hopefully will objectively and unambigously address the fact of the matter (the question of whether the argument is necessarily a false dichotomy). Once that's done you can see if you still think it violates NPOV. - Grumpyyoungman01 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)