THINGS YOU WON?T LEARN AT THE THEOCRATIC MINISTRY SCHOOL
I am a 'mature aged' undergraduate of Woolongong University. Philosophy/practical reasoning is part of the teaching degree. You may find the information below relevent to the struggle against Watchtower tyrany and doublespeak. I apologise if this information has been posted before. We struggled with the american text (the americans have a knack for complicating simple things). The examples may not fit perfectly but hey .. I'm still just an undergrad! unclebruce
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
When the premises of an argument presume what they purport to prove.
BEGGING THE QUESTION - the question is left unanswered.
This is when the arguer creates the illusion that his/her inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion. For example: by leaving out a key premise, by restating a premise as the conclusion or by reasoning in a circle.
Example: People who lack humility have no desire to learn the truth because everyone who wants to learn the truth also has humility.
COMPLEX QUESTION ? a single answer to a multi barreled question.
This is when two or more questions are asked as a single question and a single answer is given to both .
Example: Is Lionel Swingle still drinking excessively?
FALSE DICHOTOMY
When an arguer presents two non-jointly exhaustive alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive and then eliminates one, leaving the other as the conclusion.
Example : Either we execute all internet apostates or their numbers will explode and they will destroy Gods earthy organisation. We certainly don?t want them to destroy Gods earthly organization so we must require their extermination.
SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
When the arguer ignores relevant evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.
Example: Jehovah?s Witnesses say that we can have a free home bible study. That sounds like a great bargain! After a short bible study course we can be free of psychological problems and look forward to eternal life on a paradise earth.
FALLACIES OF WEAK INDUCTION
When the conclusion between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion.
APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY
When the arguer cites the testimony of an unreliable authority in support of a conclusion.
Example: The head of Oxford University said that several years? exposure to Watchtower publications gives one the equivalent of a university degree.
APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
When the arguer uses the fact that nothing has been proved about something to support a conclusion about that thing.
Example: No one has been able to prove the existence of extrasensory perception. We must therefore conclude that extrasensory perception only exists as a result of demonic possession.
HASTY GENERALISATION ? converse accident
When the arguer draws a general conclusion from a specific case.
Example : The Daily News carried an article this morning about an ex JW that was arrested on drug possession. Apostates are nothing but a bunch of junkies.
FALSE CAUSE
When the arguer?s conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably doesn?t exist.
Example: A few minutes after Brummie posted on JWD a devastating earthquake struck George Bush?s outhouse. For the safety of the oval office, it is imperative that Brummie no longer posts.
SLIPPERY SLOPE
When the arguers conclusion rests on an alleged chain reaction, and there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.
Example: The publishers have asked us to pay for their shoes. The request will have to be refused. If we pay for their shoes, next they?ll be asking we pay for their bookbags and umbrellas. Then it will be bicycles, burgers and milkshakes. Expenditures for these items will drive us into bankruptcy.
WEAK ANALOGY
When the arguers conclusion rests on an alleged analogy (or similarity) that is not strong enough to support it.
Example: No one would buy a pair of shoes without first trying them on. Why should anyone be expected to marry without premarital sex?
FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY
These occur because of an ambiguity in the premises or conclusion.
EQUIVOCATION
This occurs because some word is used implicitly or explicitly in two different senses.
Example: If Farkel gave Shelby a ring they are engaged. Farkel did give Shelby a ring. He phoned from home: therefore they are engaged.
AMPHIBOLY
Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends upon the misinterpretation of a statement that is ambiguous owing to some structural defect.
Example: Gumby said he saw a picture of a drunken harlot in the watchtower. We can only conclude that the Society has broken the rules because harlots aren?t allowed in watchtower premises.
FALLACIES OF GRAMATICAL ANALOGY
These occur because of a grammatical similarity to other arguments that are non-fallacious.
COMPOSITION
Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of the attributes of the parts of something onto the whole.
Example: Mrs. Bisby is 51% correct. Mrs. Bixby is a Jehovah?s Witness. Therefore Jehovah?s Witnesses are 51% correct.
DIVISION
Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of the attributes of a whole (or class) onto the parts (or members).
Example: England is 51% Female. Brummie is English. Therefore Brummie is 51% female.
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
These occur when the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion.
APPEAL TO FORCE
When the arguer threatens listeners to get them to accept a conclusion.
Example: Surely you welcome the opportunity to join our protective organization. Think of the horrific death you will experience in the event of you not joining.
APPEAL TO PITY
When the arguer attempts to support his/her conclusion by evoking listener?s pity.
Example: The position should be given to Brummie; he has a wife, six hungry kittens and a mouse habit to support!
APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE
When the arguer plays on listeners psychological needs (eg: vanity, snobbery, ?get on the bandwagon?) to force agreement.
Example: Of course you want to buy a tie like Brummies. They really show off your head and all the Hollywood cats down on the strip can be seen wearing them these days.
STRAWMAN
When the arguer distorts his/her opponents argument to more easily attack it, demolishes the distorted argument and concludes that the opponents real argument has been demolished.
Example: Simon has argued that American foreign policy sucks. Obviously Simon wants to abolish the US altogether. Yet without the US there would be no gridiron, no zippo lighters, no Texas and no Harley?s, hoagies or craps. None of us wants to forego these benefits. Thus we can see that Simon?s argument is absurd.
MISSING THE POINT
When the premises lead to a particular conclusion but a different conclusion is drawn (or one which may be only vaguely related).
Example: Unclebruce is suffering amnesia and has no recollection whatever of the events of the past few weeks. We can only conclude that he did not post the atrocious things posted in his name this past week.
RED HERRING
The arguer diverts attention by addressing extraneous issues and presumes some conclusion has been established.
Example: We?ve all heard the argument that the WBTS is a dangerous cult. Yet much of what their publications say is true. AWAKE! magazine explores important issues facing people today and warns about a variety of dangers to your health. The Watchtower Society is just great!
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON
Critisising the character of a person in order to discredit their argument.
· ad homonym abusive
Abusing the opponent rather than considering his/her ideas.
Example: Brummie has argued in favour of free cooked mice for all ginger cats. But Brummie is just another one of those upper-crust intellectual pussies who is out of touch with reality. No sensible person would want to serve him dinner.
· ad homonym circumstantial
Attacking opponent?s circumstances not ideas.
Example: Brummie has argued that all dogs be fed to the lions at London zoo. But this is what you would expect him to say. After all Leo and snuggle-puss are his cousins.
· ?You too?
When the arguer shifts the burden of guilt onto a second arguer to discredit argument.
Example: unclebruce has accused Dan of being one of the grumpiest posters on JWD but it?s been proved that when unclebruce logs on most everyone else logs off.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY of JEHOVAH?S WITNESSES
It is no surprise to ex-Jehovah?s Witnesses that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society employ all of the above logic fallacies as well as numerous other subtle and not so subtle tactics and mind control techniques to win over new converts and to keep those they have in line. Ex JWs will immediately recognize most of the above. As well as using every trick in the book, the leaders of the Society have no qualms about lying, which they justify under the emotive banner ?spiritual warfare?.
Most students of the bible know that its words can easily be bent to say whatever you want them to say. Few bend the old book?s words to better brain washing effect than the watchtower ?bible scholars.? The term brain washing is problematic but I believe accurately describes the mind numbing effect of a constant diet of watchtower literature to the exclusion of all else. As a JW, I even joked that I was proud to be brainwashed on ?the truth.? Most Jehovah?s Witnesses are poorly educated and, like my parents, have bookshelves full of watchtower books but precious few others.
If you come across any other logic fallacies, Watchtower specific or otherwise, I?d appreciate them for my website.
If you can provide specific examples of logic fallacies from watchtower publications they?d be much appreciated.
Thanks again, unclebruce.
Definitions:
Premise: A proposition from which a conclusion is drawn.
Ad Homonym: An American bastardization I?m having trouble coming to grips with. (Another example of Americans rendering English unclear by the pretentious and injudicious use of Latin?)