Recognizing Common Pitfalls of False Argumentation - By Ray Franz

by flipper 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  flipper

  There are honest ways of arguing- and dishonest ways of arguing. In Ray Franz book " In Search of Christian Freedom " on pg. 437 he quotes some points from " Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric " by Howard Kahane of Bernard Baruch College regarding invalid methods used by people who pontificate on the basis of superior wisdom or superior authority. Many times Jehovah's Witnesses have used some of these invalid methods to prove their alleged " points ". See if you notice these :

  1. Misrepresentation of opposing arguments, as by the use of a " straw man " in the place of the real point at issue .

  2. Use of " circular reasoning " , in which an unproved premise is used as the starting point of an argument that proceeds to build on the premise rather than on established fact.

  3. False analogy, where similarities exist but not the kind needed to prove the conclusions argued for.

  4. Creation of a " false dilemma " , which makes it appear that there are only two choices, the one being argued for and another that is usually undesirable - when in fact there may be several choices, several alternatives.

  5. The dragging of a " red herring " over the trail of the argument, that is, bringing in some point that is not relevant to the discussion and which only serves to divert the reader's attention from weaknesses in the argument.

  6. Ad hominem ( meaning " to the man " ) argument, which consists of an attack on the person argued against , instead of on his argument .

  7. Provincialism, that is, appealing to the tendency to identify closely with the thinking, belief - even the prejudices, bias or ignorance - of a particular group, and to see things largely from the standpoint of the in-group versus the out-group.

  So have you seen any of these types of argumentation used by Jehovah's Witnesses before when justifying their beliefs ? Whether it's here on the board or just discussing points with JW relatives or former friends in general- I have seen these tactics used in debates with them. So what do you think about these traits ? What's your opinion of these techniques ? Have you had any personal experiences in which you noticed these traits while debating with JW relatives or aquaintances ? As always- I look forward to your takes . Have a great Saturday evening ! Peace out to all, Mr. Flipper
• 

  sabastious

  They are constantly taking cheap shots at anyone they can outside of the Organization. While criticizing their beliefs they almost always bring it to a personal level by using terms like "wicked" or "weak."

  -Sab
• 

  Essan

  If the Society stopped using those listed fallacies the magazines would be blank.

  Here's a game we could play - match the various WT subjects with the fallacies they commonly use.

  1. Straw man = Trinity (misrepresenting, then 'debunking' their misrepresentation)

  2. Circular reasoning = Secondary fulfillment of prophesy (not establishing that secondary fulfillment is Scriptural first)

  3. False analogy = Blood policy (claim that transfusing is like eating, abstain from alcohol same as abstain from blood etc.)

  4. False Dilemma = 'God's Organization', Christendom vs JW's, also circular because not proven God actually has an 'Organization' before we must choose.

  5. Red Herring = Supposed Pagan Origins of things they want to demonize.

  6. Ad Hominem = Supposed bad hearts and insincerity condemns Christendom, but good hearts, pure motive excuses JW's, often of same crimes.

  7. Provincialism = JW's vs The World, JW religion is "The Truth". JW religion defines 'truth', truth does not define JW religion.

  I'm sure others can identify more.
• 

  sabastious

  If the Society stopped using those listed fallacies the magazines would be blank.

  lol

  -Sab
• 

  flipper

  SABASTIOUS- Exactly. JW's always take cheap shots at those outside the organization. If we doubt the WT organization we are deemed automatically wicked or evil. Pretty weird.

  ESSAN- Good job in identifying witness teachings with the different forms of argumentation ! Wow. I'm impressed. I couldn't have thought of that so quickly. Good job ! Peace out, mr. Flipper
• 

  flipper

  Wanted to bump this threadup if any missed it and wanted to comment. Thanks, Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  mann377

  I couldn't agree more. All one has to do is question the validity of any statement of the WTBS and they verbily attacked imediatly
• 

  flipper

  MANN 377- I agree completely. I mean I can't count the times I've been verbally attacked by my JW daughters for just stating my opinion in a respectful tone ! It's like if you are outside the Jehovah's Witness organization- your opinions don't count to them. Crazy. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  flipper

  Wanted to bump this up for any who anted to comment. Thanks ! Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  Farkel

  :So have you seen any of these types of argumentation used by Jehovah's Witnesses before when justifying their beliefs

  Easy!

  1. Misrepresentation of opposing arguments, as by the use of a " straw man " in the place of the real point at issue .

  "We cannot judge who or who will not survive Armageddon. Only Jehovah can read the hearts of people"

  2. Use of " circular reasoning " , in which an unproved premise is used as the starting point of an argument that proceeds to build on the premise rather than on established fact.

  "Jehovah's Witnesses were chosen by God to speak for God. We know we God chose us because we were speaking God's true words, and that's why God chose us."

  3. False analogy, where similarities exist but not the kind needed to prove the conclusions argued for.

  "The fact that we had two world Wars in just the last Century is proof that the predictions in the Gospels of "wars and rumors of wars" in the last days is a sign the end is near."

  4. Creation of a " false dilemma " , which makes it appear that there are only two choices, the one being argued for and another that is usually undesirable - when in fact there may be several choices, several alternatives.

  "You either stay with us and live forever, or leave us and stay dead forever."

  5. The dragging of a " red herring " over the trail of the argument, that is, bringing in some point that is not relevant to the discussion and which only serves to divert the reader's attention from weaknesses in the argument.

  "Did you get that information from an "apostate" web site? If so, it cannot be true. All apostates are liars."

  6. Ad hominem ( meaning " to the man " ) argument, which consists of an attack on the person argued against , instead of on his argument .

  "You're just bitter, that's all." "Everyone knows that apostates are all adulterers. Therefore, you can't believe a thing they say."

  7. Provincialism, that is, appealing to the tendency to identify closely with the thinking, belief - even the prejudices, bias or ignorance - of a particular group, and to see things largely from the standpoint of the in-group versus the out-group.

  "Of course we have the truth. Look at the "rich spiritual heritage" of Jehovah's Organization that has been built over the last 100 years."

  Farkel, Ad Hominem CLASS