Excellent example, Blues Brother! The "sisters" have learned not to ask me for my reaction to a service. Now I get asked, "Didn't you enjoy the service today?" presented with a dazzling, if slightly forced smile.
Logical Fallacies in WT Publications
by Oubliette 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Oubliette
Wow, I'm really pleased with all the positive comments and additonal contibutions. Thanks to all.
I was not surprised to read that many of you found additional fallacies even in the example I used in my original post.
I think this could be really helpful in trying to find ways to reach some still-in.
I'm busy at work right now and don't have time to respond to everyone's posts, but will try to later.
In the meantime, please look for more blatant and recent examples of logical fallacies in any WT publications.
-
jgnat
For those still in, might it be most effective to ask questions? The goal after all, is to help them think.
-
cognisonance
Consider the following article, w11 8/15 pp 3-5 :
Do not become an “Internet Eve.” Be critical and suspicious of the information. Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?
Now, this advice is generally good. We should find out who authored information on the internet, what credentials they have, what sources are used, if we can verify the sources, and if we are talking about scientific matters, how current is the information. On the surface, this all seems good and well. But notice that I missed one of the four points they bring out?
Yes, that’s right; I did not enumerate “Why was this published? What motivated the Writer? Is there any Bias?” Now this advice is still helpful because sometimes people have something to gain from what they say (for example, someone testifying or endorsing products) that casts doubt upon the testimony or endorsement. But this is bad advice for evaluating arguments. 1
Why would the Watch Tower Society want members to ask those questions? Do you think it is because they want readers to evaluate court testimony or endorsements? Or is it possible that they also want you to filter argumentation based on these questions as well? If that is the case, this would be an Ad hominem (Circumstantial) attack. 2
For JWs this fallacy can take the following form:- Former members have a vested interest in criticizing the Watch Tower Society.
- Information we come across online can be from former members.
- Therefore, such criticism should not be trusted.
The key point to remember is that someone’s argument should stand or fall on its own merit, not because of the source of the information.
To provide a non-JW example consider the following:- A study into the health risks of mobile phone[s] involved mobile phone companies.
- Therefore, the study cannot be trusted. 3
1 Curtis, Gary N. "Argumentum ad hominem." Fallacy Files. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html>.
2 Bennet, Bo. "Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)." Logically Fallacious. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/11-ad-hominem-circumstantial>.
3 "Rhetological Fallacies." Information is Beautiful. 2 April. 2013 <http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/>
-
Oubliette
jgnat, yes. As I alluded to in my original post, we'd have to use secularized examples, but that's not hard to do.
For example, to teach someone to recognize ad hominem attacks you could discuss something like this:
1. I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly an unbiased source.
2. Abortion:
-
- Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
- Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
- Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
- Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
My idea is to catalog the most common and blatant examples of logical fallacies and other rhetorical errors in WT publications, catalog them and then create a number of secularized examples of each. This could be a great tool!
-
-
Terry
Look at the shift in CONTEXT used by the Watchtower for their own purposes of misidentifying ex-members and slandering them.
First, read the exact target of the statement in the actual scripture.
7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we [a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
Now read the FORCED CONTEXT of the Society:
WT 81 9/15 pg 24-26:
NOT SHARING IN WICKED WORKS
"All faithful Christians need to take to heart the serious truth that God inspired John to write: “ He that says a greeting to [ an expelled sinner who is promoting an erroneous teaching or carrying on ungodly conduct ] is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 11.
ISN'T IT AMAZING? They have taken a chainsaw to the scripture and stuffed a phony interpretation as a NEW and ERRONEOUS target into the crack!
-
cognisonance
My idea is to catalog the most common and blatant examples of logical fallacies and other rhetorical errors in WT publications, catalog them and then create a number of secularized examples of each. This could be a great tool!
I like that idea. Where would you display this list? Forums are not the best, well forum, becuase posts get stale and fade.
-
jgnat
A wiki would be best. Then there can be multiple contributors and it can be steadily updated.
-
Rattigan350
why do people keep writing "marked" or "marking" in threads?
Is it like a marking talk?
-
Witness My Fury
Because they can then find it again easily in the list of threads they have commented on under their user profile, otherwise it is a bitch to find again unless you add each page of interest into your browser favourites in which case it becomes available to prying eyes in the household... as well as turning your favourites into mush.
