Recently, someone whom I said was being intellectually dishonest, took it to mean that I was accusing her/him of being deceptive. This is not the meaning of intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishosesty is about the use of false argumentation styles, something many JWs do not spot in WTS arguments, and something that a number of ex-JWs carry with them and unwittingly employ.
A Case Example: Today, President Obama chose to sign a bill that protects 2,000,000 acres, some of which is good for ranching and recreation.
Intellectual dishonesty by a far right conservative may see this as a threat to individual rights to own land, farm, and ranch, and may compare such a bill as taking us toward more government ownership of land. (You will see this is covered under "Far-fetched Hypothesis" in the list below.)
Intellectual dishonesty by a far left liberal may see this as a mere tokan step in the right direction of keeping land out of the hands of mean-spirited money grubbing capitalists who will do nothing but pollute the land and destroy the eco-system, and making more species go exstinct. (You will see this is covered under "Far-fetched Hypothesis" in the list below.)
Now for the facts: The Bureau of Land Management, which includes the National Park Service, runs 84.4 million acres (131,875 square miles) of federally protected and owned land in the USA. (4.4 million acres is actually privately owned, but still under the authority of the government as to how it is used). To compare this amount of land, the State of New Mexico is 121,593 sq. miles, and the state of Montana is 147,046 sq. miles. The total land that is Federally protected is large, but compared to the total sized of the United States, what does that mean:
2,000,000 acres is 3,125 sq. miles. The State of Rhode Island is a little over 1,500 sq. miles. The State of Delaware is 2,489 sq. miles, and the State of Connecticut is 5,544 sq. miles. So, President Obama increased Federal land by about 2.4%. But, compared to the USA, which is 3,537,441 sq. miles, the amount of land that Obama protected is 0.09% (0.00088). This is barely a spit in the ocean.
Intellectual Honesty: While I lean conservative, when the facts are viewed from a complete perspective, intellectual honesty demands that I not make a big issue of this bill. I do not agree with the President on most of his actions and policies. But, I cannot honestly fault him for signing this bill, even if I feel that the existing 131,875 sq. miles is more than enough Federally protected land.
Why bring this up on JWN?: Because "some" on this, and other forums, do not deal in facts, but instead employ rhetoric, and use false arguments to sway the argument to fit their own ideology. Their 'belief' system outweighs their ability to engage in intellectual honesty. The problem is not limited to JWs or ex-JWs, it permeates society, even a good portion of the 40% of college educated individuals (vs 60% high school education or less) get caught up in false arguments.
The results of false arguments: It causes hard feelings, does not result in understanding facts, nor in swaying anyone to a better opinion. Instead, people feel threatened, strike back, and lash out at those with whom they disagree, ending up with more enemies when the dust settles.
The problem for me: My concern is that I hate hard feelings among people more than I love carrying a debate. The problem for me is that I have never found a way to get through to "some" that I have debated that they are more important than winning an argument, and still find a way to to help them see that their positions often employ false arguments. I have resigned myself to the fateful reality that I will never be able to accomplish resolution of the problem. What to do then? Hell, I don't know.
Lincoln used false arguments: Abe Lincoln was a master at the use of false arguments ... he loved to employ a false argument with a twist of humor. He would use a Red Herring or Non Sequitur in his opening arguments before a jury, by belittling the clothing and dress habits of the opposition attorney ... and then point out how if the guy can't properly dress himself, how will he ever properly represent his client. He was often successful at manipulating the minds of the jury. Today, the opposition would object and the judge would sustain such, and caution Lincoln against the use of such arguments. But in the 1840s and 1850s, one could get by with such tactics ... and we wonder why so many innocent people get sent to death row (currently, Illinois holds the record at 50% convictions later being proven innocent).
TABLE OF LOGICAL FALLACIES: - Better known False Arguments
Ad Hominem: (attacking the person instead of the issue) This one often causes flame wars. A good example is when we don't like the position that an ex-JWs (maybe former elder) takes, we attack them by saying that they are still in the organization in their minds, or that they still have an elder's attitude. The past experience in the organization is irrelevant to the issue being debated.
Ad Ignorantium: (appeal to Ignorance) arguing on the basis of what is known can be proven. Example: "You can't prove there isn't a God, so there must be one." One must be careful with this, because what is not known also cannot be disproven either. The real response should be one of indetermination, and not conclusion. In the case of God, however, it is not about proof, but about faith. Once ex-JWs learn this lesson, they can find faith much more satisfying that trying to find the elusive "truth" or a true group.
Ad Verecuniam: (appeal to authority) convince the listener or reader by appealing to an expert. This is a tough one, because the Watchtower attempts to use this, and often we need to apply information from experts to defeat Watchtower nonsense. The distinction, however, is that the authority quoted is speaking outside of his field. We see this with the news media quoting movie stars as though they were experts in all sorts of things. Or we see someone from the TV show "ER" selling a pharmacy product like a pain reliever. Sometimes ex-JWs appeal to the science expert, Carl Sagan, and his views of Jehovah's Witnesses. So, this fallacy can backfire if one ever runs into an educated JW.
Affirming the Consequent: (a form of circular reasoning) an invalid form of a conditional argument in which the second premise affirms the consequent of the premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedant. Example: "He wants to be an elder, so he must attend all the meetings, therefore, since we see him attending all the meetings, he must want to be an elder." Or, "The Bible must be from God, because the Bible says that all scripture is inspired of God."
Amphiboly: (syntactical ambiguity) a fallacy of deliberately misusing implications. We see this used a lot in TV advertizing. Example: "9 out of 10 medical professionals recommend our pain reliever." This assumes that all medical people are experts on pain relief, and that 90% of all of them make such recommendations. The Watchtower falls victims (or uses) to this type fallacy. What the consumer is not told is that the "9 of 10" could be in-house medical sponsors, and the total number could be 10, but that it bears no relevance to the entire community of doctors.
Appeal to Emotions: This one is used a great deal in the sales and marketing professions. If used appropriately, it is ethical. Our emotions are a legitimate part of our humanity. When a sales person demonstrates a car or shows a house, they can rightly highlight the emotional appeal. But, an unethical person will put heavy emphasis on pride, fear, hate, etc. We can see that the Watchtower uses this to get JWs to "hate and fear apostates" to such an extent that parents will shun their own children when there is otherwise no logical reason to do so.False Analogy: This argument is based primarily on analogy, especially false analogy to prove its point. Example: "Jehovah's people are a happy people because we see them smiling when going from door-to-door." (Followed up by a nice picture in the Awake! magazine of smiling JWs.) Or, "Jehovah's Witnesses must have the rtuth, for look at how they do not need police to control their conventions." This fallacy often stays with ex-JWs, because we learned and practiced such logic for many years. It is hard to break free from it, and it can burn us when being challenged on line with legitimate critical thinking.)
Begging the Questions: (Another form of circular reasoning) See "Affirming the Consequent"
Black v White: (No gray areas, polarized thinking, and the Slippery Slope) This argument is often used in political debates, and it results in a lot of angst between those who suscribe to various political parties ... and needless to say, it affects how a government often fails to properly address national interests. Little needs to be said as to how the Watchtower Society uses such to polarize the JWs. Slippery Slope Example: "If a teenage boy and girl hold hands, it will lead to kissing, then to petting, then findling, then sexual intercourse, then unwanted pregnancy, then veneral diseases or AIDS, broken marriages, and worst of all, being disfellowshipped from God's organization. Therefore, young people should be kept busy in God's service, properly monitored by their parents."
Common Belief: This is an appeal to the opinion of majority (whether the majority holds this opinion or not) An elder may try to convince a straying JW of a certain view by saying that it is the "conscience of the congregation." Example: "Why grow a beard? You know that the conscience of the congregation see you as trying to look worldly." When I was leaving the organization, an elder stated to me, "Well, don't you think that if your views were true, that everyone in the organization would leave it too?" We see this in mass media when people are arrested for crimes, even before they are charged. The sad situation in Aruba has many believing that certain young men are guilty. Likewise, the vast majority of America strongly (emotionally) believes that O J Simpson is guilty, in spite of the jury verdict. There is no room for open discussion and reasoning on this topic.
Past Belief: (Similar to Common Belief) The fallacy appeals to beliefs held in the past. This is not talking about what an ancient culture believed (necessarily) but more of a ongoing belief from the past (sometimes mistakingly stated in Present Perfect tense: "They have been thinking"). Example: "The organization follows what the early Christians believed, and what has been believed by faithful little flock of anointed all these centuries." Oddly enough, JWs, and sometimes ex-JWs just never get around to reading what was actually believed in history. However, what the early Christians believed may or may not be relevant or still true in our century.
Contrary to Fact Hypothesis: (unreasonable certainty or conclusion) This fallacy not only draws extreme conclusions. It is a favorite of certain conspiracy theorists and religious organizations. Example: "If Rutherford had not acted when he did, why the organization would have fallen right back into Christendom and apostasy." or "Because President had Serbia bombed, he saved the entire regions from falling into the hands of an evil dictator." Or "Because President Bush invaded Iraq, he prevented Hussein from taking over the world's oil supply." Denying the Antecedant: (The inverse of Affirming the Consequent) A conditional argument that the second premise denies the antecedant of the first premise, and the conclusion denies the consequent.Example: "If he wants to be an elder, he will attend all the meetings, therefore, since we no longer see him attending all the meetings, he must notwant to be an elder." Or, "The Bible must not be from God, because nothing in the Bible tells us it is from God."
Division: (or Blame by association) This is when we conclude that any part of a whole must have the same characteristic of the whole, because the whole has that charastic. Example: "I am sure that Bobby will be a fine Pioneer, because his whole family are such good examples in Pioneering."
False Dilema: (Either/Or fallacy) This fallacy assumes that we must choose between two opposite extremes. There is no allowance for alternative views or possibilities. Example: "Men need to be either strong or handsome to survive in this world." Another Example: "You must either be part of God's one true organization, or you are choosing to this system of things."
Equivocation: (Semantic Ambiguity) Using the ambiguous feature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning to make the reasoning seem more convincing. Example: Sugar is a key ingredient of the body, it is needed for metabolic processes, so, buy our brand of sugar. The word 'sugar' is being used with two definitions that the add does not disclose. Another way this can be done was coined by AlanF. Lying by telling the truth: Example: A bill collector calls and asks if Mr. Smith is home. However, just as the phone rang, Mr. Smith stepped outside onto the public sidewalk. So, Mrs. Smith answers and says that he is not home right now. The ambiguity is that technically Mr. Smith is truly not home, but the response to the bill collector is that Mr. Smith must be out of reach.
Far-Fetched Hypothesis: (Fallacy of inductive reasoning) This is done when we accept a particular hypothesis when a more acceptable hypothesis, or one stongly based in fact, is available. Example: "The African-American church was set on fire after the civil rights meeting; therefore the church pastor must have done it to cast suspecion upon the local segregationists." Another Example: "Several JWs were arrested last night in Athens, Greece as they preached without a permit. This action must have been the result of local Greek Orthodox clergymen telling the government to arrest the innocent JWs."
Hasty Generalization: (Sample size to small or biased to be meaningful) Example: "All Jehovah's Witnesses are idiots! Just look at the stupid elders in my congregation."Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: (A form of hasty generalization) This type of generalization happens when we infer that because one event followes another, it is caused by the preceding event. Example: "With Dan Sydlik dead, then the organization will greatly suffer from increased abuse." [I and many others were guilty of doing this on the thread about Dan Sydlik]. Another Example: "Our congregation service hours are down, and meeting attendance is low, so we must have lost Jehovah's Holy Active Force. There must be someone in the congregation who is seriosuly sinning, and it is causing Jehovah to withdraw his Holy Active Force from us."
Incompatibe or self-contradicting logic: (a form of Hypocrisy) This happend when when we have two assertions (or words or or actions) that are either explicitly or implicitly inconsistent with each other. Example: When a women demands equal rights and is a feminist, still expects a man to open a door for her or pay the whole bill for a dinner date. Another Example: The Watchtower Society places great emphasis on every JW putting in time each month in Field Service. This is stressed to be done even though JWs have very important things to do, like work for a living. Yet, the leadership is often excused or exempted from such field service, because they have more important things to do, like work for a living.Non Sequitur: (Premises not related to relevant to the conclusion) Politicians use this in speeches and advertising. Example: An American Flag with patriotic music and happy attractive people surrounding the candidate have nothing to do with his/her message or the platform he/she represents. We see this in TV commercials when an advertiser has gorgeous women in bikinis standing next to a new car. We also see this used by the Watchtower Society in its artwork and photographs appearing on their phamplets, the Watchtower and Awake!
Questionable Cause: (Similar to hasty generalization or far-fetched hypothesis) This happens when we identify a cause for an event that has taken place or a fact that is true without having sufficient evidence. Pre-1985 Example: "John did not show up for field service again today. He must be losing appreciation for the urgency of the times." Post-1985 Example: "He must be associating with apostates on the Internet." (Like reading this post on JWD )
Red Herring: (a diversionary tactic)Abraham Lincoln was good at using this tactic to beat his opponents in court. Inopening arguments, he would address the jury and tease opposing counsel for having put his shirt on incorrectly. He then implied that if opposing counsel cannot even put his shirt on right, how can he possibly make correct arguments in the case before them. Red Herrings get people off the issue on some irrelevancy. Example: "Many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all of the math and drawing skills that engineers require." Another Example: "Even if an elder's counsel does not apply to you, remeber how hard they work to take care of the congregation and their families."
Slanting: (Similar to Equivocation or lying by telling the truth) A form of misrepresentation in which a true statement is made, but made in such a way as to suggest something is not true or gives a flase impression by manipulation of connotation. Example: "I can't believe how much money is being poured into the space program." This suggest that "poured" means needless or unecessary spending. Slanting comes through in our personal biases. It affects even the most honest and self-critical person. So, we cannot just point to the Society on this one. This is why peer review is needed when writing serious acedemic work. The Watchtower has done such a powerful job of slanting the meaning of wrods, that all they need to do is employ such key words in a sentance, and it causes negative reactions. Example: Apostate.
Straw Man: (misrepresenting the opponents position) It makes it easier to attack the opponent by distorting his views to extremes. Or, Straw Man can be used to attack only the weaknesses in an opposing argument, and gloss over the strengths of the opposing argument. Example: "Those who favor gun control just want to take guns away from responsible citizens and put them into the hands of criminals." Inverse Example: "Those who want to have guns will just end up using them to harm innocent people, because statistics show that most crimes happen at home." The Watchtower is very skillful in using this tactic. They will hammer Catholics, by accusing them of worshipping Mary, without ever publishing actual Catholic opinions and information. Or they will paint the Trinity as a three-headed pagan monstrosity without ever considering the good arguments in its favor.
Two Wrongs make a Right: (Similar in style to Ad Hominem) This fallacy is committed when we attempt to justify a wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. The assumption is that if others do it, then why can't we do it too. In the Ad Hominem style, we attack the person to justify our actions, as if to say, if you have done bad things, then who are you to point out my weaknesses.) Example: Supporters of apartheid in one country will justify their system by pointing to past practices of slavery in the United States. Another Example: "How can you charge the Watchtower Society with bad child abuse policies when it is far worse in Christendom, especially the Catholic Church.
* * *