Posts by cognisonance

40

March 22, 2017 TO ALL CONVENTION COMMITTEES Re: Discontinuation of Physical Distribution of Convention Releases

by wifibandit in

march 22, 2017 to all convention committees re: discontinuation of physical distribution of convention releases.

cognisonance

Lol, I guess without these "door prizes" to keep people around until the last day of these cult seminars, attendance will drop as people can stay at home and just download the electronic version when available.

4

Intellectual Honesty

by cognisonance in

an interesting quote on page 9 of the book is there a creator who cares about you is one that i came across when i was first waking up 5-6 years ago.

i thought i mentioned it here before, but apparently not.

i'm highlighting some key points for a critical analysis (part one is highlighted in bold and underlined; part two is bold; part three is underlined): .

cognisonance

At Witness My Fury... That's weird. It shows on firefox (desktop and mobile), safari, but not chrome. I guess it's a bug with this forum software. The images were in the standard png file type. Books.google.com shows images for search results and I didn't feel like typing them so I copied the images and uploaded them here. But I'll type them up. The three images say:

Image 1: page 6

We suggest that at least the following requirements should be fulfilled for the proper ascription of intellectual honesty to a person S. First, a willingness of S to take into consideration all the evidence available to S for a belief, and a readiness to pay sufficient attention to other evidence available to S which might weaken or undermine the plausibility or acceptability of that belief. Second, a willingness to reveal

Image 2: page 21

it implies to be ready to scrutinize that one believes to be true, i.e., to make up one's mind about what one really believes and, in doing so, to admit that one cannot really believe certain other things to be true.
This readiness to scrutinize what one believes to be true, is characteristic of intellectual honesty. The question of intellectual honesty arises in the first place when we judge that if someone is

Image 3: also page 6

an assertive utterance is sincere if and only if that person believes (as true) that p. Dishonesty or insincerity, on the other hand, had best be defined in terms of its paradigm case, namely, lying. According to S. Bok's definition (1978) a lie is 'an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement'. Thus, honesty consist largely in telling what one believes as true. Intellectual honesty includes honesty, but involves more.

When I was searching this book on google I was doing it from the google books webpage entry for this book. However, I noticed you can also search from the google books general search and it will give a slightly different snippet view of the text in the search results that can be easily copied. And you can keep chaining to some degree the end of one snippet to the beginning of the next. With this method I've been able to put forth what seems to be a 5-part definition of intellectual honesty, instead of just having the first part using the original method. Here is the fullest quote I can get (and my memory is correct -- plus it's even more damning):

We suggest that at least the following requirements should be fulfilled for the proper ascription of intellectual honesty to a person S. First, a willingness of S to take into consideration all the evidence available to S for a belief, and a readiness to pay sufficient attention to other evidence available to S which might weaken or undermine the plausibility or acceptability of that belief. Second, a willingness to reveal all the relevant evidence when requested by other persons. Third, S could hardly be said to possess the virtue of intellectual honesty if his beliefs are hopelessly incoherent or even inconsistent, and if S is aware of this but for some reason does not want to admit it. Fourth, we would expect an intellectually honest person S to be willing and able to amend or correct his belief system if he is confronted with new and conclusive contradictory evidence. However, S's willingness, at least in principle, to correct his belief system, does not exclude a kind of tenacity with which S may remain committed to his belief system. In other words, a person who would constantly change his mind and have himself stand corrected all the time, is lacking a wholesome and innocuous dogmatism. He would deprive himself of the opportunity to find out what is true (and false) in he world. Finally, a fifth characteristic should be mentioned. We suggest that, typically, an intellectually honest person is someone who is interested in, and therefore also a searcher for, truth. To paraphrase William James, he is someone who constantly …

That's as far as I can get. I can't get the William James paraphrased quote. Regardless -- Wow! The Watchtower takes just a tiny fraction of a five-part complex definition of intellectual honesty. How intellectually dishonest!

4

Intellectual Honesty

by cognisonance in

an interesting quote on page 9 of the book is there a creator who cares about you is one that i came across when i was first waking up 5-6 years ago.

i thought i mentioned it here before, but apparently not.

i'm highlighting some key points for a critical analysis (part one is highlighted in bold and underlined; part two is bold; part three is underlined): .

cognisonance

Typo above should be: 'Second crietera defining intellectual honesty'

4

Intellectual Honesty

by cognisonance in

an interesting quote on page 9 of the book is there a creator who cares about you is one that i came across when i was first waking up 5-6 years ago.

i thought i mentioned it here before, but apparently not.

i'm highlighting some key points for a critical analysis (part one is highlighted in bold and underlined; part two is bold; part three is underlined): .

cognisonance

An interesting quote on page 9 of the book Is There a Creator Who Cares About You is one that I came across when I was first waking up 5-6 years ago. I thought I mentioned it here before, but apparently not. So here it is below. I'm highlighting some key points for a critical analysis (part one is highlighted in bold and underlined; part two is bold; part three is underlined):

We invite all who have an open mind [and who might think there is no god] to consider this subject [of the possible existence of a Creator]. The book Belief in God and Intellectual Honesty notes that one who possesses “intellectual honesty” is characterized by a “readiness to scrutinize what one believes to be true” and “to pay sufficient attention to other evidence available."
In the subject at hand, such “evidence available” can help us to see whether there is a Creator behind life and the universe.

I added words to the first highlighted part by placing them inside the brackets. The context (preceding paragraphs) seems to suggest this is the full intent of the sentence. Review for yourself to verify if you'd like. This is also consistent with the general pattern in Watchtower literature of only advocating an open-mind and scrutinizing one's own beliefs, if and only if, such beliefs run contrary to what the Watchtower teaches. To the Watchtower it's never okay to scrutinize Watchtower beliefs or be open minded that such might be erroneous.

As to the second part, this is ironically an intellectually dishonest quotation of Belief in God and Intellectual Honesty. While I don't have a copy of this book, I can find part of the context of these quotes on books.google.com, On page 6:

and page 21:

First it's worth noting that the Watchtower appears to pull two sentence fragments from locations some 15 pages apart and sandwich them together in reverse order (bold highlight above). Anyway, look at the page 6 quote. The source is making a formal definition of intellectual honesty that consists of at least two parts. The Watchtower's partial quote only deals with the first point, and only does so by leaving out 2/3 of the sentence! They miss the part about taking "into consideration all the evidence available [for a belief]." That omission isn't too big a deal, as the Watchtower authors always scramble try to find any shred of perceived evidence to support their argument. Perhaps that part was such a 'given' to them that it went without saying. However, they leave off a very important ending portion of the quoted sentence fragment. After quoting "a readiness to pay sufficient attention to other evidence available", what's left off is how that evidence "might weaken or undermine the plausibility or acceptability of that belief." Leaving this off weakens the impact of what it means to look at other evidence.

This is significant, because the Creator book's next sentence (the third highlighted part above) says: "such 'evidence available' can help us to see whether [or not] there is a Creator behind life and the universe." My insertion of "[or not]" is implied and would be a stronger implication had they quoted the full sentence above. So if we are to adhere to intellectual honesty that means we should seek out information that might give us sound reason to reject a belief -- we should be as objective in our information search as possible. Why is this part left out? Why was the quote watered down? One can wonder if it was intentional. If that is the case then the same book that the Watchtower quotes from says this about the contrast between dishonesty and honesty (also page 6):

Back to the first page 6 quote, it would be interesting to see what the second criteria defining intellectual dishonesty is about -- it hints by saying "a willingness to reveal" ...what? For some reason I thought I found the rest of that sentence in the past, but can't anymore. My fuzzy memory recalls it saying something like, "a willingness to reveal to others any counter-evidence you discover that goes against your beliefs." Although, it's possible I'm remembering incorrectly.

9

Monica Richardson - "[Evolution] was something I never doubted; it was taught as a scientific fact."

by cognisonance in

so i found another piece in the no 4.

2017 awake attacking evolution.

wow two attacks in the same article!anyway richardson is a physician the jws are cherry picking to support the idea even intelligent people can think evolution is nonsense.

cognisonance

After exploring more about Dobzhansky's essay, I can no longer support his famous phrase unfortunately, as it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. For a long discussion see Dilley 2013.

References:

Dilley, S. (2013). Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4):774–786.

9

Monica Richardson - "[Evolution] was something I never doubted; it was taught as a scientific fact."

by cognisonance in

so i found another piece in the no 4.

2017 awake attacking evolution.

wow two attacks in the same article!anyway richardson is a physician the jws are cherry picking to support the idea even intelligent people can think evolution is nonsense.

cognisonance

pale.emperor: Ironic isn't it. It goes to show that if a person only believes what they are taught by others to believe, they are in essence appealing to authority and not critically thinking and examining the evidence for themselves. As a result statements like these are useless in that they can apply to things that are true or false. They do, however, implicitly emphasize the danger of not critically thinking while learning.

A neat tidbit from Dobzhansky's essay linked above:

"Why then do we accept the "mere theory" that the earth is a sphere revolving around a spherical sun? Are we simply submitting to authority? Not quite: we know that those who took the time to study the evidence found it convincing."

9

Monica Richardson - "[Evolution] was something I never doubted; it was taught as a scientific fact."

by cognisonance in

so i found another piece in the no 4.

2017 awake attacking evolution.

wow two attacks in the same article!anyway richardson is a physician the jws are cherry picking to support the idea even intelligent people can think evolution is nonsense.

cognisonance

Cofty I agree. It's been said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Dobzhansky's essay (the preceding link) also touches on my point, including the parallels between the heliocentric and evolutionary theories.

9

Monica Richardson - "[Evolution] was something I never doubted; it was taught as a scientific fact."

by cognisonance in

so i found another piece in the no 4.

2017 awake attacking evolution.

wow two attacks in the same article!anyway richardson is a physician the jws are cherry picking to support the idea even intelligent people can think evolution is nonsense.

cognisonance

So I found another piece in the No 4. 2017 awake attacking evolution. Wow two attacks in the same article!

Anyway Richardson is a physician the JWs are cherry picking to support the idea even intelligent people can think evolution is nonsense. She says something interesting reflecting back to a time when she wasn't a JW:

"I believed in evolution because of my education. Everybody did. It was something I never doubted; it was taught as a scientific fact."

I see this claim a lot in articles and videos like this one (also no doubt a subtle attack on higher education too!). What's interesting to me is that I'm taking an astronomy course right now. Early in that course we went over the evidence to support the fact that Earth revolves around the Sun (heliocentrism). Up until now I don't recall ever being exposed to the evidence to support it (maybe I was in grade school but forgot?). Anyway, my sentiment up until this course was similar to her prior view regarding evolution and I might as well use her words and say:

I believed in heliocentrism because of my education. Everybody did. It was something I never doubted; it was taught as a scientific fact

So far so good. The issue here is that I never was previously taught (or retained) the reasons why heliocentrism is a scientific fact. I suspect the same thing happened with Richardson. Had she learned and retained the information about the overwhelming evidence to support evolution, she would still accept evolution today. Learning mere facts is pretty much useless without also learning the evidence that was used to draw the conclusions that we call facts. Being "taught" something is much different in my opinion than "learning" something. Perhaps this is an indictment against the way science is sometimes taught or how students approach classes focusing on memorizing facts to pass an exam instead of actually, you know, trying to learn something?

13

No brain, No Life -- says JW Professor Rajesh Kalaria

by cognisonance in

so continuing my review of the current bull shit my family in this cult are subjected to i found this article about professor rajesh kalaria, a jw since 1973 and a scientist who has studied the human brain for 40 years (hmm... so he converted into this cult very early in his career it seems).anyway i also found this jw broadcasting piece about him where he says:.

“and brain is what we are; what i am, what you are.

no brain, no life.

cognisonance

So continuing my review of the current bull shit my family in this cult are subjected to I found this article about Professor Rajesh Kalaria, a JW since 1973 and a scientist who has studied the human brain for 40 years (hmm... so he converted into this cult very early in his career it seems).

Anyway I also found this JW Broadcasting piece about him where he says:

“And brain is what we are; what I am, what you are. No brain, no life. It’s as simple as that.”

First, articles like this annoy me. JWs go and cherry pick a few scientists that agree with them, always ones who are JWs themselves which can't get more biased than that! It gives an impression to my family that reasonable scientists can reject evolution and say it doesn't make sense. As a scientist myself, I fear they are subjected to a vary narrow and misleading view, but don't realize the logically fallacious cherry picking going on in articles and videos like this. But I digress... (Another digression: they were not doing these videos when I was a JW. It seems their coercive persuasion techniques have bumped up a notch!).

The point of this post is this JW makes an interesting statement. He says, no brain, no life. The brain is what we are. This being the case how then does he (or the JWs leadership that endorses his view) reconcile that with their belief in a resurrection. If the brain is gone, then the person must be gone, for "the brain is what we are." If they think their god would recreate a perfect copy of their brain upon resurrection, then what would prevent him in theory from creating 2 copies? These would be copies not the original. Thus a resurrected brain would not be you.

I'm amazed that they can't see the paradox here. Such strange beliefs and mental gymnastics required to maintain JW beliefs while knowing that once the brain dies, that's it. The person is gone forever (there can be no resurrection). Their hope they hold on so tightly to is such a flimsy idea if they actually think about it.

20

Watchtower says: if your unbelieving relatives think you are in a cult, try to see things from their point of view

by cognisonance in

12 have empathy for unbelieving relatives.

while we may be overjoyed about the bible truths we have learned, our relatives may mistakenly believe that we have been tricked or have become part of a cult.

we should show empathy by trying to see things from their viewpoint and by listening carefully to discern their real concerns.

cognisonance

Of course speaking of us former-members that same article says:

Respect the discipline of Jehovah. His arrangement can bring the best long-term outcome for all, including the wrongdoer, even though the immediate effect is painful. (Read Hebrews 12:11.) For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.

Hmm... maybe I should try "abnormal" contact, which judging by the list of normal contact in the paragraph must mean, you know, that weird way people communicate... face to face?