Clearly, undeniably, without doubt ... is there a term for introducing a thought in such a way.
Watchtower article often introduce a point that has no merit with words such a "undeniably."
For instance the Watchtower 2014 August 15 page 10 says:
"Jehovah undeniably blesses the preaching work of Christian women and supports them in times of trial. With his help, for example, godly women maintained their integrity under Nazi and Communist rule when many of them suffered and some even lost their lives because of their obedience to God."
It is difficult to justify that someone who lost their life preaching had benefited from the blessing and support of Jehovah. These articles seem to throw in words like "undeniably" to throw the reader off from drawing the logical conclusion that Jehovah does not bless the preaching work.
Is there an official term for this type of fallacious reasoning?
The WT is really saying that God blessed those women, so that they can die for him. Otherwise, they would have given up. And if they gave up, they might not make it into the New World. So obviously, God blessed them.
That`s a good point you make the word that comes to my mind is obfuscation trying to deflect any possible objection to the point being made by them , shutting down any possible argument one might have against the statement being made .
Undeniably there should be a technical term for this kind of usesage. Evidently there are other words that could be added to the list. Clearly Watchtower frequently use such words in place of arguments. No doubt there will be someone on the forum who knows the term.
I think you had it. Fallacious, or fallacious reasoning. More simply put, misleading.
Adverbs of certainty, apparently. I mean, definitely.
Incidentally, it was one such word, so the story goes, that made my father in law leave JWs. He was reading the section "chronology" in the old Aid book, which used the word "evidently" in relation to 607 BCE, with no actual justification before or after. He concluded he couldn't believe in the teachings on the basis of an "evidently".
It’s kind of a combination of “puffing” (in the legal sense), the common sense fallacy, making unfounded assertions and begging the question.
The WT’s use of “evidently” in their “explanation” of the “overlapping generation” teaching was what put it over the top for me.
I remember realizing it was all bullshit because they wrote “evidently” (which implies there was some evidence) but they never provided any.
It’s intellectually dishonest. They just make shit up and lie.
The example jwfacts cited in the OP smacks of bullying, manipulation and deceit when understood in light of the social dynamics of the JW religion. Seriously, who’s going to say during a WT study, or even privately to any elder, “I think it IS deniable that ‘Jehovah ... blesses the preaching work of Christian women and supports them in times of trial.’”?
No one ever.
s there an official term for this type of fallacious reasoning?
I found this online -
What are Normative Statements?
Normative statements are subjective statements – i.e. they carry value judgments.
A value judgement is a subjective statement of opinion rather than a fact that can be tested by looking at the available evidence
This is is contrasted with a positive statement that is objective and based on available evidence.What is even more frustrating about the use of these words, they can often have more than one meaning, which the Watchtower knows and uses to deceive the reader.
It it comes down to, from whose perspective these words are meant but the Watchtower's intention is to suggest that they are true.