Freethoughtpedia and One Dimensional Thought

The *pedias are multiplying, and this one is targeted toward "Free Thinkers". More about Free Thinkers in a bit, but for now there is one article at this 'pedia that is symptomatic of the entire place: One Dimensional Thinking, which is of course attributed to theists.

According to the article,

"One-dimensional thinking (1DT) is a description of the process which leads to an erroneous conclusion that is based upon the False Dilemma fallacy. That is, the idea that most questions have a yes/no, white/black, positive/negative answer.

1DTs (One-Dimensional Thinkers) tend to look at the world in terms of extremes, and ignore any middle ground that doesn't correlate with their own foregone conclusion or personal agenda. Everything must fit neatly into their good/evil paradigm. And of course, the 1DT always considers his side to be the "good" side and those who disagree, the "bad", or "evil" side.

In other words, it is the source of bigotry based on having the one true answer; it is the source of patriotic propaganda and anti-abortion opinion.

Also known as the "either/or" or "excluded middle" fallacy, the premise for falseness under the "false dilemma" fallacy requires the inclusion of middle states to the first principle of the Excluded Middle. The Excluded Middle Principle states that a single proposition cannot be partially true and partially false; it cannot partially exist and partially not exist.

The Free Thinkers reject this notion outright by invoking the notion that middle states exist, and to ignore them is bigotry. So nothing is really "good" or "evil", it is an in-between state. Reality is not really real, it is an in-between state. No concept is really true or false, it is an in-between state.

If a statement is neither true nor false, then what is it? Being in-between true and false renders a statement useless. It is a violation of all the principles that underlie and support rational thought.

The idea of one-dimensional thinking is a cover for rejecting linear, rational thought, which by definition is based upon the truth value of the premises that support each conjecture. No conjecture based on in-between states of "somewhat true, somewhat false" can be considered to be a rational, provable conjecture.

This entire article is based on the assumption that true/false judgements are somehow immoral. Yet the sliding scale, relativist position held by freethinkers cannot brook actual morals: the position is paradoxical and non-coherent. And rejecting the states of "true/false" by use of a fallacy to prove them false, is self-contradictory, and non-coherent. So the article fails all tests of logic and rational thought.

This seems to be a hallmark of "freethinkers", that they are free from the nasty absolutism that is represented by the constraints of logic. They are truly free to think whatever comes into their heads at the moment, and to publish same... in a 'pedia, if they so wish.