JWs and the Pavlov experiments. [Train your dog]

by jerome 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

jerome

Some of you may have heard of experiments where a Russian sicentis by the name Pavlov was able to train some of his dogs to drool at the sight of a light bulb flashing or at the tune of a door bell ringing.
He did it by combining something that happens naturally [the dog drooling at sight of food] with something that normally dosent produce a responce [door bell ring and flashing light bulb] and then removing the food from the whole senario only after the drooling and a ringing door bell/flashing light bulb became intertwined in the dogs mind over time.
Normally when a dog sees food it drools. The sight of food is a natural stumlus and it therefore produces a naturall responce. It helps the digestive process of the dog.
When a dog sees a light bulb flashing you wouldent expect it to drool now, would you? So we call this an artificially induced stumil-responce interaction.
But what he found was that if you flash a light bulb right before a dog recives its meal and repeat it over a period of time the dog learns to expect the meal after the sight of the flashing light bulb or a door bell ringing and the dog drools in preparaion for its meal.
Makes sense, dosent it!
So now every time he rings a door bell or flashes a light bulb in the presence of the animals he has a laugh as he watches his dogs drools when there isnt any food around.
Do you think that people can be that silly and predictible?
Well lets see.
-----------------------------------------
Most people have heard about God, they kinda know how youre supposed to react when something is mentioned that seems to have his backing behind it. Even if the person has never heard anything about any kind of supernatural being all you gotta intorduce one of any religeous zelots and they will be shure to share the word with the unbeliever. And according to principles of social infulence the non believer in time will shurely have take on some of the characteristics of the religeous zelot regardless of his faith. Or when all else fails theres always the threat of hell or loosing out on some sort of spritual paradise after you die. Since people may wanna be on the safe side they may choose to go along with the message of the gospel.
When you think about it though, if you believed that there actually was a supernatural being responsble for your exhistence then and he asked you simply to obey what ever he sais to do then most would be willing to comply. What God says to do is by definition reasonable after all. So if you dident do as he commanded you'd be breaking the rules.
So good now we have a situation where everyone has some sort of characteristic behavior common to belief in a supernatural being. They may for instance know that believers pray to this devine being in the hope of devine guidance, they study his word and they may also now be aware of the fact that God should be feared and his authority is unquestionable eventhough he gives you the free will to do as you please. As I said before what ever god saysto do is by defnition reasonable after all he does make the rules.
For these people that are now believers or receptive to the gospel [which ever one it may be] lets just say that a JW knocks on their door one saturday morning.
They would already know that if God says to jump, a good believer would ask how high.
Lets call this the natural stimulus that causes a responce.
[ Even though the belief has been accuired, for simplicity call it naturall. besides many people argue that you are born with a desire to seek a relationship with a higher power.]
The Watchtower claims to speak for God. Lets call this the artificial stiumlus because people wouldent normally do what the Watchtower comanded.
A major part of the JW indoctrination process is to get you to accept the Watchtower leaders alone have the authority to speak for God.
Now lets combine these two stumli:
-----------------------------------------------
If God speaks I would obey because if I dident it would be me who was breaking the rules.
The Watchtower speaks for God therefore I obey them if not I would be breaking Gods command.
-----------------------------------------------
Now lets remove the part where God is speaking and you have:
The Watchtower speaks so therefore you obey.
The result is:
One ready-made easy to minuplate mind controlled indivdual honestly beleving that they are fighting some all out holy religeous battle against evil simply by following a publishing companys lead.
And we think that we have a mind of our own.
I wouldent mind a critical analysis os the senario that i've just laid out it would be much appreciated.
jerome
jerome

I had to edit it because i never make sense the first time i post something.
jeorme
The Bible is a two edged sword wield it for evil and there may be hell to pay.
Dutchie

Hi Jerome: It's PAVLOV. The scientist won a nobel prize for his work. Interesting post.
jerome

Thanx
i hate it when I screw up a post but I do it all to often.
The Bible is a two edged sword wield it for evil and there may be hell to pay.
Introspection

Hmm, lets take a look at this.. Technically it's not the same kind of conditioning, since Pavlov's dogs are an example of classical conditioning. I think it might be more helpful to see where the logic breaks down here.
The reasoning is if A then B, if B then C. So if A, then C. In other words, if A is true, then B is true. If B is true, then C is true. Since A is true then if follows that C is true.
In this case, the reasoning is basically if it's from the Watchtower, (A) it's God's counsel. (B)
If God gives counsel, (B) then I obey. (C)
So if the Watchtower says something, (A) then I obey. (C)
Now the problem of course lies between A and B. You kind of forget about that leap and start thinking of it in two parts, (A and C)because it goes without saying that the Watchtower is God's channel of communication, or so you think.
The logic of A to B which states the Watchtower speaks God's counsel is probably from a bit of inductive reasoning, which is where you have a certain amount of evidence (or what you consider evidence) that leads you to a certain conclusion. Of course there's a lot of things we can get into, like faulty premises in considering some things as reasons to believe a given organization speaks for God, but the important thing to note here is that even if all of the premises are true it is NEVER a certainty when you use inductive reasoning, it is only more PROBABLE because of the amount of evidence you have gathered, which of course is usually very subjective.
So basically, you're going from a bit of reasoning (inductive) that is not definite to one that is, (deductive) since the latter is pretty much a mathematical fact. It is like saying if I have two dimes, then I have $0.25. If I have $0.25, then I can change it into a quarter. Well, since a dime is only $0.10 it just does not add up to $0.25. While the monetary value in the example is small, the claim that any organization or what/whoever speaks for God is not small. In any case, it just does not add up.
Edited to add:
It should be noted that as much evidence as you think you have in inductive reasoning, it may not be enough just because you think it is. You might think 10 reasons are plenty, but if the total list of criteria is say 50, or anything greater than 10, then it's not true. But the bottom line is since inductive reasoning is not absolute, and you're plugging that into a piece of deductive reasoning, then it does not hold that the conclusion you reach through that bit of deductive reasoning is true, because you can't be sure your shopping list of evidence is all that is needed to prove things conclusively.
I'd like to open this up just as Jerome did, did I miss anything?
jerome

I know that thecnically its not exactly the samething [comparing conditioning of dogs to that of people] but I have managed to point out the similarities. In both circumstances you can introduce your own buttons and then push them at will.
I never heard of inductive reasoning before but from your post I gather that when you form an opinion utilizing subjective data your opinion may be in error.
[Am I close?] - I also had to look up the word subjective
What youre saying makes alot of sense though.
[sarcastic]
But I dident get the part where you said that if you had two dimes ($0.10) then you have a quarter ($0.25).
I'm sorry bub your a nickel ($0.05) short.
[/sarcastic]
... even if all the premises are true it is NEVER a certainty when you use inductive reasoning.
You make perfect sense in saying that in going from Watchtower speaks(A), its Gods counsel(B).
How did we get from (A) to (B)?
Before you even get stsrted we already have a logic error.
That was a great post, I wish I could write like that.
jerome
Introspection

Hi Jerome, you can look up inductive reasoning on the web, but basically it is moving from specific examples to generalizations, whereas deductive reasoning is moving from generalizations to specifics. So an example of inductive reasoning would be:
Bob is nice to John
Bob is nice to Jane
Bob is nice to Mike
Bob is nice to Sarah
Bob is nice to me
Based on this, I conclude that Bob is a nice guy.
However, as I was saying just because your own observations show one thing, you don't know what it looks like overall. Bob could be a jerk to everyone else he runs into, so that 5 people wouldn't be very meaningful. Basically it's relative. If Bob only has dealings with 6 people in his life, 5 out of 6 is pretty good. But if he deals with 50 or so, then that certainly doesn't mean he's a nice guy.
jerome

I like that word 'subjective'
Definition: Exhisting only in the mind.
[source dictionary.com]
(It cannot be described as actual)
I'm gonna kill the use of that word.
Hilda... it seems that your argument is patently subjective.
JW apologist need to become more objective in their reasoning rather than subjective.
Your statement with regards to the prophetic speculation of the Watchtower Society is clearly subjective.
jerome

JWs and the Pavlov experiments. [Train your dog]

Share this