Argument from Authority or "Expert Fallacy"

by biometrics 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  biometrics

  I had this logical fallicy tactic used on me by my wife. See: Argument from Authority on Wikipedia

  You know how it goes. Brother X is a [scientist, university lecturer, doctor, banker, judge ... i.e. someone more intelligent than you are] and he believes that 1914 is the correct date, so it must be true. Obviously these weren't the exact words, but that was the gist of the conversation.

  Now when I think back this very same tatic has been used by the Watchtower for many years, in talks, and in publications. I've seen it often used in experiences where one of the authority figures is converted by an uneducated JW.

  When you think about it it's kind of absurd of them to use this logical fallicy considering the Watchtower's past/current stance on higher education. And their aguments for why laymen wrote the NWT.

  On one hand they shun "wordly" knowledge and education. Yet on the other hand they use "worldy" educated scollars to add credibility to aspects of their faith.
• 

  Satanus

  'On one hand they shun "wordly" knowledge and education. Yet on the other hand they use "worldy" educated scollars to add credibility to aspects of their faith.'

  This flip flop/double standard/hypocracy always did a number on my brain. It made me itch where i couldn't scratch.

  S
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Biometrics,

  An argument from authority is not fallacious if the question is one of what experts in the field have discovered. However, for expert opinions to have merit they have to be testable.

  On the other hand, it is fallacious to assert as authority the opinions of an expert when the person is offering an opinion outside their field of expertise. So, for instance, a medical doctor may be an expert, but having medical training and experience does not make him or her an expert in the field of chronology.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  biometrics

  Thanks Martin.

  Every time I've had/seen a JW use this argument, the authority figure was not an expert in the field.

  Also it's often been used for no specific argument other than "They're intelligent, they beleive 'the truth', that should be enough reason for you too" type arguments.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Also it's often been used for no specific argument other than "They're intelligent, they beleive 'the truth', that should be enough reason for you too" type arguments.”

  Unfortunately within the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses it can be difficult to know what a particular member believes about a particular Watchtower teaching because of two things:

  1. Open dissent is quashed as a matter of policy. That is to say, any member of this community who openly voices dissent on a doctrinal issue is exposing themselves to expulsion, and this expulsion is not only of membership. Watchtower’s brand of expulsion goes beyond religion by having a person expelled from long time and earned social association with friends and family.

  2. Watchtower does, as a matter of policy, advocate that local elders discourage members from sharing their personal views in response to studied inquiries into belief held by the community (as opposed to doctrinal positions held by Watchtower). See The Society on Documenting Personal Views available at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/6063/1/Society-on-Documenting-Personal-Views

  For those reasons (and others) its difficult to know what a particular “intelligent” JW thinks of a Watchtower teaching. When you ask the response may be coy, and for a reason. A less intelligent member could easily take this to mean whole agreement.

  Regardless, no matter who agrees with a teaching that agreement and the teaching must be able to withstand close scrutiny. Otherwise the teaching is unsound and accordingly not very helpful, and maybe harmful.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Splash

  And the expert has to be current.

  The WT recently quoted a 16th century doctor on the dangers of blood transfusions!

  Splash.
• 

  bohm

  One of the more dumb things in the awake was the article where a mathematicians wife studied with some jws, and being initially sceptical he tried to show they were wrong. However it turned out 1914 was mathematically sound, so he became convinced they were right.

  FAIL
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  “The WT recently quoted a 16th century doctor on the dangers of blood transfusions!”

  Splash,

  Can you cite the source? I’ve been looking for that in something recent from Watchtower.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Splash

  Dude!

  You already wrote about it!

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/academic-deception-or-incompetence.html

  Splash
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “You already wrote about it!”

  Yes. I know I’ve written on the subject. I was asking about where “the WT recently quoted a 16th century doctor on the dangers of blood transfusions”.

  I thought you had something specific in mind that Watchtower had published more recent than the 60s, 70s and 80s.

  Marvin Shilmer