Posts by Marvin Shilmer

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

Marvin Shilmer

Oh, is that all?
I agree with you, but know from tons of experience that you've placed a pretty tall order and most folks just ain't gonna do it.

If a person is incapable or unwilling to release themselves from preferential outcomes (conclusions) then they will be plagued with confirmation bias.

The other problem is this: if you don't care about the outcome, you likely won't do the work to find it.

My remark intended to convey a disinterest in a particular outcome. My remark was not intended to convey disinterest in finding the outcome of a subject of interest. Of course individuals will be more driven to investigate areas of personal interest. This is a major factor in choosing career research areas.

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

Marvin Shilmer

But how to avoid confirmation bias?

The best way to avoid confirmation bias is to release oneself from caring about the outcome (a conclusion) of an argument and, instead, focus on looking for objectively verified information (for purpose of this subject we'll call this: facts). Once you have verifiable information at your disposal then you can use this/these as premises to form logical arguments, which will lead to conclusions without bias.

Let objectively verified information and valid argument forms decide the conclusions.

Confirmation bias disappears because you don't care about the conclusion. If, as it turns out, human behavior is the subject of research what I've said does not suggest a person must be amoral. Rather it means a person must be willing to let their morality be guided by facts rather than preference.

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

Marvin Shilmer

Very well put, Viviane!

Learning of the skills of critical thinking and then taking time to learn how to use those tools can make such a world of difference in a person's life. Otherwise an individual will always find themselves preyed upon by the ever-present snake-oil salesperson.

10

Royal Commission and blood transfusion refusal for children?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

i wonder if the royal commission has examined the practice of jws being led to refuse blood transfusion for children when medically necessary to save life or preserve health in relation to the question of child abuse.

i've not heard anything about this brought up.

is the rc concerned solely with life altering abuse only in the form of sexual molestation, or is it looking at how the organization deals with all life altering forms of abuse jw children are exposed to the result of watchtower teaching and society?

Marvin Shilmer

cognac,

The RC is set up to examine sexual abuse of children. But it also looks at related matters.

In this case it seems to me a related matter how the organization relegates the life of a child based on its unique theological view. That is to say, the religion demonstrates with this doctrine that it will hold to its theological position even if that means a child suffers a needless death. THAT should tell the RC something about how the religion places itself in the social hierarchy of the rest of earth's human population.

Watchtower's blood teaching demonstrates that the religion places its own biblical interpretations AHEAD of the life and health of children.

10

Royal Commission and blood transfusion refusal for children?

by Marvin Shilmer in

jw
friends

i wonder if the royal commission has examined the practice of jws being led to refuse blood transfusion for children when medically necessary to save life or preserve health in relation to the question of child abuse.

i've not heard anything about this brought up.

is the rc concerned solely with life altering abuse only in the form of sexual molestation, or is it looking at how the organization deals with all life altering forms of abuse jw children are exposed to the result of watchtower teaching and society?

Marvin Shilmer

I wonder if the Royal Commission has examined the practice of JWs being led to refuse blood transfusion for children when medically necessary to save life or preserve health in relation to the question of child abuse.

I've not heard anything about this brought up.

Is the RC concerned solely with life altering abuse only in the form of sexual molestation, or is it looking at how the organization deals with all life altering forms of abuse JW children are exposed to the result of Watchtower teaching and society?

Has anyone shown to the RC the Awake journal of May 22, 1994?

THAT should get some attention!!! Watchtower's governing body practically GLOATS over admitted child sacrifice!

EDITED TO ADD: I would think this a "related matter" given that it shows where the religion places the life of a child based on its unique theological prism despite immediate and fully predictable dire results that are avoidable based on current knowledge and practices.

27

Theocratic Warfare

by stuckinarut2 in

no doubt we noticed the royal commission ask vin toole (and i think terry o'brien) about the expression "theocratic warfare"?.

they were asked to explain it and what is meant to witnesses.. vin outrightly lied when he said he "had never heard of that expression!".

i remember him using that term in conversations and talks many times!!

Marvin Shilmer

Presumably Mr. Toole has, as a trained lawyer and Watchtower appointed elder, given close consideration to the subject of "lies" in relation to the religion's doctrine. Yes?

So where on earth would a trained lawyer and Watchtower appointed elder baptized in the 1970s go to learn about the religion's doctrine on lies?

Oh. I almost forgot!!! Of course such a person would go to the religion's index of publications and look under the subject "lies". Right?

Guess what shows up sticking right in your eyes in Watch Tower Publications Index 1930-1985... THIS:

distinguished from “theocratic war strategy”: ad 1061; w60 352; w57 285; w56 86-87

That particular index was first published in year 1986. Me thinks Mr. Toole is a bold face liar.

20

An Obvious Contradiction Mr Stewart is Missing

by cofty in

all jws on the stand have stuck to the same line that they have no problem with cooperating with mandatory reporting when state law requires it.. if the law does not require it then bible principles absolutely prevent them from taking away rights of the victim to report abuse to the police or not.. we have already heard from a jw rep a couple of days ago who proudly asserted that when the law conflicts with bible principle they will always obey the bible and quoted acts 5:29 "we must obey god rather than men".. please join the dots!.

Marvin Shilmer

"We have no qualm at all about mandatory reporting. If the government wants us to report every allegation of sex abuse that ‐ of child abuse that we ever hear, we're more than happy to do it. But the problem we have is, scripturally, elders don't have the right to take away that right to decide what's in the best interests of the family from the family. If the law requires us to do it, we have no hesitation in doing it."--Mr. Toole testimony to the Royal Commission.

So, according to Toole, elders DO NOT have the scriptural right to decide what's in the best interests of the family when a family does not what child molestation to be reported. Yet if the law tells elders they have to decide what's in the best interests of the family by reporting allegations of child abuse then they will do so despite NOT HAVING scriptural right to decide what's in the best interests of the family by reporting when a family does not want it reported. Hence, it's contradictory to claim when the law conflicts with bible principle elders will always obey the bible principle.

24

ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 in

during yesterday's rc proceedings (wednesday 5th august 2015), one of the victim's lawyers questioned mr vincent toole, the jw organization's legal counsel for the australian branch office.

she asked him why at least two of the jw elders who gave evidence last week refused to swear on the bible.

mr toole appear puzzled by her question and said he did not know.

Marvin Shilmer

Wow as far back as 1976 the Watchtower stated swearing on the Bible is a matter for conscience. THis clearly did not filter through to my JW family.

It goes back much further than that.

"There is no Scriptural objection to taking an oath to testify to the truth. This is called being "sworn in" as a witness. It is an agreement to tell the truth on matters that the court is entitled to know."--Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News, published by Watchtower, 1950, p. 19

I've heard old-timers talk about how a JW should take great care about when and where they let themselves be put under oath, including before courts of law. I think because of misunderstanding and presumption there crept into JW lore a notion that it was somehow wrong to swear an oath with hand on the bible. The misunderstanding was that JW listeners did not understand the speaker was talking about the Theocratic War Strategy doctrine. The presumption was the oath was the typical oath with hand on the bible. But those old-timers knew they were talking about how JWs had to take care about oaths to tell the truth because when before a court once such an oath was given then the JW no longer had scriptural basis to deceive but, instead, had to tell the truth IF they opted to answer. Problem was, when before courts of law opting to not answer would leave a JW in contempt and probably incarcerated. Hence the JW had to take great care when and where they let themselves be put under oath, including before courts of law. Which is precisely what the old-timers said.

24

ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 in

during yesterday's rc proceedings (wednesday 5th august 2015), one of the victim's lawyers questioned mr vincent toole, the jw organization's legal counsel for the australian branch office.

she asked him why at least two of the jw elders who gave evidence last week refused to swear on the bible.

mr toole appear puzzled by her question and said he did not know.

Marvin Shilmer

Actually it has been allowed long before 2003.
*** w76 7/15 p. 447 Questions From Readers ***
If a Christian must testify in court, is it proper for him to place his hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth?
There is no Scriptural objection to doing so, though each person must decide whether to comply or to ask to be excused from this.

Honestly, I don't recall a time when Watchtower expressed a notion that swearing on a bible was somehow wrong. But JWs have since the 1950s held a hesitancy to let themselves be placed under oath to tell the truth because of a peculiar aspect of the religion's Theocratic War Strategy doctrine. Old-timers know this and from them the hesitancy has some depth among JWs, but no so much among newer-comers. I recall JWs who didn't want to be placed under oath for simple civil matters because once under oath they feared that unannounced some official might come forth and use the opportunity to ask questions about something they'd rather not give answers to under oath.

And, for readers, it's little wonder that Watchtower took its Theocratic War Doctrine underground because once it put it out there so blatantly in the 1950s law enforcement agencies all over the world were served notice that JWs may or not be telling the truth in response to investigations, that is unless investigators succeeded in putting a JW under oath to tell the truth before asking their questions.

24

ROYAL COMMISSION: ARE JWS TAUGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SWEARING ON THE BIBLE OR NOT? JW.ORG PLEASE EXPLAIN!

by steve2 in

during yesterday's rc proceedings (wednesday 5th august 2015), one of the victim's lawyers questioned mr vincent toole, the jw organization's legal counsel for the australian branch office.

she asked him why at least two of the jw elders who gave evidence last week refused to swear on the bible.

mr toole appear puzzled by her question and said he did not know.

Marvin Shilmer

Clearly the JW organization's position has changed across the decades.

Yes, but not when it comes to Watchtower's Theocratic War Strategy. That position has not changed.

Though claiming ignorance of this as a doctrinal position, Toole as much as admitted the doctrinal position remains in effect because he offered some of the same explanations for why the position was invoked in the first place. So the doctrinal position of TWS remains intact, which means the part dealing with statements made under a sworn oath also remain intact.