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:
- Former members have a vested interest in criticizing the Watch Tower Society.
- Information we come across online can be from former members.
- Therefore, such criticism should not be trusted.
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:
- A study into the health risks of mobile phone[s] involved mobile phone companies.
- Therefore, the study cannot be trusted. 3
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/>