[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
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.
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
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:
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:
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/>
in another thread a poster, oubliette, asked to share logic fallacies we spot in wt publication.
that is a great idea and thread to which i've already contributed.
i'll also the contents of this post to that thread, but thought that it's easier to discuss a particular fallacy (or fallacies) in use in wts publications if we consider one quote at a time.
In another thread a poster, Oubliette, asked to share logic fallacies we spot in WT publication. That is a great idea and thread to which I've already contributed. I'll also the contents of this post to that thread, but thought that it's easier to discuss a particular fallacy (or fallacies) in use in WTS publications if we consider one quote at a time. So I'm planning on starting a weekly column here entitled Watch Tower Fallacies.
This week, I’ll focus on “Internet Eve.” 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:
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:
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/>
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
A false analogy (also called a weak analogy) takes the following form:
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.) 1
The key point here is that the analogy between A and B has to be sufficently weak for it to be fallacious. All analogies, even the strongest ones, aren't perfect and do break down at some point (i.e. become weak). For example here is one in the bible (the strength or weakness of this analogy is more in how it is used):
"For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (ESV, Hebrews 3:4)
Sometimes this analogy is used with regards to the earth, to support the view it was created by God. There are many similarities. A house provides us shelter and safety (from storms and cold), so does the earth (from solar storms and the cold of space). We enjoy a clean house; so do we enjoy a clean earth. There any many more. But even this analogy has weak points (that don't automatically make it fallacious per se). For example, the earth rotates around an axis and moves through space around the sun. A typical house is stationary and does not rotate and move. So this is one area where the analogy breaks down. (I want to point out that all human-made houses are indeed made by humans (what of caves used as a home, though?), but that doesn't neccessarily mean that the earth was created by a builder too. Simply using an analogy does not make it true. There needs to be more to one's argument here than just this.)
Now if we use this "every house is built by someone" analogy and apply it to "but the builder of life is God." Well what are the similarities here? Both have the appearance of design. Okay, in some ways life also has the appearance of an intelligent designer. Are there any other similarities? I can't think of any others (i.e. this is used just as a different way to state the watchmaker analogy). What of the differences? Is a living thing our home (it might be to those that believe in the soul-body speration, but not for JWs)? Is a house alive? Does a house have offspring? Is a house susceptible to mutations? It's quite easy to show that this analogy is weak.
1 Curtis, Gary. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 25 Setp. 2012. <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
Opps realized my original and reproduced analysis has the wrong fallacy. Instead of Affirming the Consequent, it should be Begging the Question. Additionally, it should be noted that the last paragraph came from forum member TD, who pointed out the distinction without a difference fallacy.
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:revision>0</o:revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:totaltime> <o:pages>1</o:pages> <o:words>858</o:words> <o:characters>4892</o:characters> <o:company>oak park</o:company> <o:lines>40</o:lines> <o:paragraphs>11</o:paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>5739</o:characterswithspaces> <o:version>14.0</o:version> </o:documentproperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>ja</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
I like the OP too, as learning about logic fallacies helped me learn the TTATT as well. Here are some of the ones I've contributed in other threads:
We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords. Adam and Eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing. What exactly was it? By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. (Genesis 31:26; 34:26; 48:22; Exodus 5:21; 17:13) So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.—2 Timothy 3:16. (“Questions from Readers.” Watchtower 1 Feb. 1994: 31)
We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.
By the time Moses wrote the book of Genesis, swords were well-known and used in warfare. So Moses’ words "the flaming blade of a sword" enabled his readers to visualize to a degree what existed at the entrance of Eden. The information known in Moses’ day contributed to the understanding of such matters. And the language Moses employed must have been accurate, for Jehovah had it included in the Bible.
Affirming the Consequent, a form of Circular reasoning. The bible is accurate (unstated premise). The bible says that God used a flaming sword. Thus, the description can be considered accurate because God had it included in the Bible.
It's also a distinction without a difference fallacy. One on had the author is saying it would have been unloving for God to create the sword, a weapon. I ask why this would be unloving. To which I can only think of the negative implications associated with him being the inventor of the sword. Next the author says that while God didn’t technically create the first sword, what he did have placed at the entrance of the Garden of Eden could be visualized to a degree of accuracy as being a sword. So wouldn’t the first statement about it being unloving for God to create the sword still be an issue? How is this any different? He didn’t create the sword per se, just something that resembled it.
It doesn't matter if 'Sword' is the correct word for the spinning 'Thing' or not. If the spinning 'Thing' was lethal by design, then it was a weapon by default. And there's no moral difference between the assertion that God introduced humans to weapons vs. God introduced humans to swords.
okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.
you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.
you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.
'What if it could be established that pedophiles are the way they are because of their genes?'
What if hard determinsim is real and thus free will is illusionary? Do we stop punishing harmful actions just because people may not techically have been able to do otherwise? I don't think anyone would actually argue that, but the type of punishment and how we view the person might change.
okay--first off, i wasn't involved in the following conversation; i was eavesdropping!.
you know how it is when you happen to be in a public place.
you are minding your own business until you're not minding your own business.
I love thinking about logic fallacies as it's the biggest tool in my toolbox for critical thinking so I appreciate this thread.
Terry, I think the main problem you are having is mistaking the Dad's Appeal to Extremes for the fallacious-logic-exposing technique of reducto ad absurdum.
The son says not, "... it is a question of WHAT IS FAIR! If somebody is born with any innate tendency WHO ARE YOU to deny them their own nature." Had the son argued for this, then the Dad's argument would be a reducto ad absurdum showing the fallacy in the Son's premise.
But of course, the son isn't saying that. He is talking specifically about homosexuals, and his father is substituting apples for organes via extremes (i.e. arguing pedophilia is an "extreme" form of homesexuality perhaps, and/or substituting the idea of a homosexual's innate nature with unrelated innate natures). From what I can tell this is an absuse of the reducto ad absurdum technique. In short, the father is making a form of a slippery slope argument (as besty has pointed out with regards to how his argument is affecting your thinking), as well as a strawman argument.
we all know about the wt's famous quotes.
i can't find this article from the magazine on page 9 paragraph 8 from the lincolnshire boston target uk?
can i get some help from our crack staff her on jwn.
Don't know how much it is related, but that quote comes up in a google search to this:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Christianity-Youth-Issues-2346/today-youth-christianity.htm
being out of the cult that i spent the first 3rd of my expected life span in, now on the outside i keep having this amazement that i was actually in a cult!
what we were told was the "real life" now seems so surreal and dreamlike that i feel like i lived an episode of the twilight zone.
i also feel like.
That Ad was very weird.
Queue the twilight zone theme...
do-do-do-do...
It's also an example of an Argument By Giberrish.
