At times, the Wikipedia list of fallacies seems endless, as though it will take all the snails in French butter to illustrate. Recently, I noticed that the Skeptic's Guide contains a list of its "Top Twenty" fallacies, worded in new and precise ways. This delighted me, as cross-referencing is a mischievous habit of mine. My eye landed on the false continuum. It seemed to lend itself to illustration, and at very reasonable rates, so I complied.
The SG defines the false continuum as:
"The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful."
Wikipedia offers the example of baldness and non-baldness. We know a bald man (or woman) when we see one, though he/she may still have a few hairs left. We probably can't name the minimum number of hairs a person can have before qualifying, yet the distinction exists. For a colorful, Grecian example of this dilemma, see the Sorites Paradox. This fallacy also goes by the "fallacy of the beard," which makes me wonder whether fallacies were all named by balding, bearded people.
Back to definitions. The false continuum sounds a bit like its opposite, the the false dichotomy, which punishes us for making two groups out of genuine sludge.
So how do I know when it's proper to bisect an object, group, or idea, and when to leave it as sludge? How do I know whether a vinaigrette is a salad dressing, or whether it's oil and vinegar? Can it be separate in the bottle, or do you have to purchase one of those decanters that holds the vinegar inside the oil in a little red nucleus? I guess I have to draw lines through the fuzz. Maybe that's why they call them informal fallacies. Perhaps the formal fallacies are better shaven. Even my metaphors are a bit mixed up today.
The drawing is an intermingling, not only of snails, but of my blog illustration styles. Hitherto, I have created either drawings or watercolor collages. Here the twain meet. Was this inappropriate timing, considering the theme of partition? You be the judge.
Post-painting, I read a forum that calls this fallacy a "false spectrum." This was satisfying, as I had used a literal spectrum to color the snails without having heard the term. I decided to leave the middle sketchy and unpainted to create a visually fuzzy area, though I also wanted the viewer to assume two snails. I was certain at first that the double shells would clearly indicate two snails . . . until I began perusing Flickr for snail models and found the snail with twin shells. This photo baffles me. It looks like the little fellow must be enduring great pain to have an extra summer home. Explanatory theories are welcome. Because apparently two shells can belong to one snail, I used the color break and two sets of antennae/eyes to reinforce doubleness.
Do not ask me what the snails in my drawing are doing. They may be neck wrestling. That is their own business . . . if they are two snails, and not one. Now I'm not even sure.
Oh, that Flickr snail, that David Blaine of snails, undermining my illustration with his trickery. He has somehow connected the shells with a string, and is hanging between them . . . oh, I'm going to be up all night.
The SG defines the false continuum as:
"The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful."
Wikipedia offers the example of baldness and non-baldness. We know a bald man (or woman) when we see one, though he/she may still have a few hairs left. We probably can't name the minimum number of hairs a person can have before qualifying, yet the distinction exists. For a colorful, Grecian example of this dilemma, see the Sorites Paradox. This fallacy also goes by the "fallacy of the beard," which makes me wonder whether fallacies were all named by balding, bearded people.
Back to definitions. The false continuum sounds a bit like its opposite, the the false dichotomy, which punishes us for making two groups out of genuine sludge.
So how do I know when it's proper to bisect an object, group, or idea, and when to leave it as sludge? How do I know whether a vinaigrette is a salad dressing, or whether it's oil and vinegar? Can it be separate in the bottle, or do you have to purchase one of those decanters that holds the vinegar inside the oil in a little red nucleus? I guess I have to draw lines through the fuzz. Maybe that's why they call them informal fallacies. Perhaps the formal fallacies are better shaven. Even my metaphors are a bit mixed up today.
The drawing is an intermingling, not only of snails, but of my blog illustration styles. Hitherto, I have created either drawings or watercolor collages. Here the twain meet. Was this inappropriate timing, considering the theme of partition? You be the judge.
Post-painting, I read a forum that calls this fallacy a "false spectrum." This was satisfying, as I had used a literal spectrum to color the snails without having heard the term. I decided to leave the middle sketchy and unpainted to create a visually fuzzy area, though I also wanted the viewer to assume two snails. I was certain at first that the double shells would clearly indicate two snails . . . until I began perusing Flickr for snail models and found the snail with twin shells. This photo baffles me. It looks like the little fellow must be enduring great pain to have an extra summer home. Explanatory theories are welcome. Because apparently two shells can belong to one snail, I used the color break and two sets of antennae/eyes to reinforce doubleness.
Do not ask me what the snails in my drawing are doing. They may be neck wrestling. That is their own business . . . if they are two snails, and not one. Now I'm not even sure.
Oh, that Flickr snail, that David Blaine of snails, undermining my illustration with his trickery. He has somehow connected the shells with a string, and is hanging between them . . . oh, I'm going to be up all night.
Comments
Post a Comment