Logical Fallacies in WT Publications
I’ve been working on a idea that I think might be very helpful in assisting some JWs to wake up and learn “The Truth About the Truth” (TTATT).
One thing that really got my cognitive dissonance revving into overdrive was the many logical fallacies in the publications of the WTBTS. For a long time, I would mentally push them aside because I trusted the writers of the WT. But over time, the sheer number of them became too overwhelming to simply ignore.
I know from reading other posts here on JWN that this was an important factor in helping many of us learn TTATT.
That being said, I believe the reason the majority of JWs swallow down these fallacies is not just because they still mistakenly trust the writers of the WT, but rather, it is because they don’t recognize them as false reasoning or erroneous logic. They simply do not have the Critical Thinking Skills needed to recognize flaws in logic and other rhetorical errors.
There is a wealth of materials available on the web dealing with this subject. And when people attend university they get some training in this area. (I’m sure this is one of the main reason the GB doesn’t want young ones going to college.)
But of course, most JWs won’t access these tools on-line via Satan’s Internet, they sure won’t find them on jw.org and they won’t be attending university.
I am working on a project to address this area and am eliciting the help of the JWN community.
I want to compile a list of The Most Common Logical Fallacies (and other assorted rhetorical errors) in WT Publications.
A closely related spin-off of this would address blatantly manipulative language and the use of propaganda.
The list should contain:
- The Fallacy:
- Fallacy Description:
- A Recent or Notable Example:
- Analysis:
I’ll get things rolling with one that’s already been discussed at length here on JWN:
The Fallacy: Ad Hominem – (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person")
Fallacy Description: An idea or argument is dismissed because of some alleged character flaw or fault of the person who argues for it, not because of any evidence against the argument or lack of evidence for it. It is a personal attack against an opponent instead of against their argument.
A Recent or Notable Example: Apostates are “mentally diseased”
‘’Suppose that a doctor told you to avoid contact with someone who is infected with a contagious, deadly disease. You would know what the doctor means, and you would strictly heed his warning. Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Tim. 6:3, 4)’’ – Watchtower, July 15th, 2011, p. 16, para. 6
Analysis: The ad hominem attack is the labeling of apostates as “mentally diseased.” In fact, this is a bit of a double-whammy because the labeling of dissenters as “apostates” is itself an ad hominem. 1
Notable in this article is the lack of any language addressing the disagreements, contentions or criticisms of these so-called “apostates.” They are simply dismissed out of hand. In fact, a careful study of the entire article reveals that none of the disagreements of “apostates” are even mentioned explicitly, let alone addressed. But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself!
Additionally, the article is chock-full of loaded language carefully chosen to further demonize “apostates.” They are compared to:
- “Smugglers” that operate in a clandestine manner
- “A clever forger” that tries to pass phony documents
- “False teachers”
- “Bad influences”
You get the idea. All of this is just more ad hominem obfuscation of the issues which are curiously never addressed. Why not?
Instead, regarding these "apostates," faithful JWs are instructed to:
- Not receive them into our homes or greet them
- Refuse to:
- read their literature,
- watch their TV programs
- examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs
These “false teachers” are said to have “a cunning spirit” and “corruptive ideas.” What exactly those ideas are we cannot know from this article because none of them are ever mentioned let alone addressed. The article contains no mention of any of the specific questions or disagreements these “apostates” have. No real reason is given for avoiding them other than what is essentially a, “Because I say so!” command. The scrupulous avoidance of any specific issues that “apostates” have with WT teachings is in itself telling.
An additional point for consideration is the use of the “mentally diseased” label. Although not a clinical medical term, it implies some such validity and merit when in fact it has none. One should wonder:
- What is the basis for this “diagnosis” of apostates as "mentally diseased"?
- Was a clinical study done?
- What were the credentials of those conducting the study?
- Was the number of participants in the study large enough to render a statistically significant result to warrant labeling all apostates as “mentally diseased”?
- Has this study been peer reviewed?
- Are the results available for my personal analysis?
Although it’s just a guess, I’m pretty sure I know what the answers to those questions would be.
Finally, let’s assume for a second that all apostates really are “mentally diseased.” It does not follow that just because someone has some undefined mental health issue that they are necessarily wrong in questioning or disagreeing with a particular religious teaching or any other idea for that matter.
A Critical Thinker needs to hear the arguments for and against any particular issue, examine them carefully and then arrive at a logical conclusion based on evidence, not character attacks on a person or person unknown.
- - - - - - - - - - -
A concise compilation of common Logical Fallacies in WT Publications could be very useful to help people waking up to TTATT. Probably a primer would require non-WT examples, but ones that are based on those found in the WT. The means of delivery--that is, how we can to about actually getting this into the hands and minds of our family and loved ones still in--can be discussed as well.
In that regard, please share your own observations and analyses.
I’d suggest this format as I’ve used above.
- The Fallacy:
- Fallacy Description:
- A Recent or Notable Example:
- Analysis:
But feel free to use what ever works best for you!
Thanks,
Oubliette
----------------------
1 - In a footnote to paragraph four, the article defines “Apostasy” as “a standing away from true worship, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment.” This of course begs the question of whether or not WT/JW teachings really are “true worship.” That, in turn, concerns the very core issues which alleged “apostates” doubt, question, disagree with or have dissenting views.