Fallacy Psychology

[Samael_Khan]

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] "

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects."

"A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

I am considered by JW's as an apostate. I left because of research into various things about the group.

When presenting this information to members or other people on this forum, JW's often resort to the above logical fallacies to discredit the information I present. With regards to issues that place the group in a negative light, instead of addressing the information and sources that I provided, they make a blanket statement about the claims being wrong, and say that people shouldn't listen to apostates because they are lying, and address a topic related to a point and not a point itself.

As an example, I often address the negative consequences about the affects of shunning. A JW might say that I have a problem with them disciplining people and the process involved. In fact I made no such statement. I have no problem with discipline. I have a problem types of discipline, in this case shunning because of its negative consequences.

Now I am not saying in this OP that either the JW's or I are wrong on our position of certain matters. One cannot determine that without looking into both of our arguments. What I do have a problem with is saying that my arguments are flawed and I am spreading lies and misinformation just because I am an apostate. That is an ad hominem fallacy and avoids actually addressing the questions I pose.

So my questions to anybody is this:

What is the motivation behind attacking a persons character rather than addressing the issues themselves?

Do you or do you not think that it is better to debunk arguments through direct analysis of individual points?

Does using an ad hominem fallacy actually place the user in a negative light?

The logic is so bad on the part of those using the logical fallacies, that in one post I posted links to the official JW websites to prove my case, and then JWs objected to my post, told others to rather CHECK OUT THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE TO FIND THE TRUTH!

Link to said post:
Can any JWs answer this?

I am sure many others here have come across similar cases from various different types of people. Your thoughts?

 

[Nimos]

What is the motivation behind attacking a persons character rather than addressing the issues themselves?

The main reason someone would attack a person rather than the argument is because, if you can show that the person is a "bad" or lying person, their arguments would suffer as well. In some cases it might also be easier to have a go at the person rather than the argument. Personally I think its always best to go for the argument, but if a person countless of times have been caught not telling the truth on purpose and when made aware of it just ignores it, then "attacking" the person for not being trustworthy seems fine to me. So its a balance between those that debate how they want to approach each other. Because if you present your case and the person answering you wont even comment on what you are saying or look at your sources and instantly go for a personal attack then the debate is pretty much over. Because nothing you can say will reach them, but also you have the option to call them out as not being serious, which will put them in a bad spot as as well. But at least in my experience the moment it becomes a personal attack the debate is pretty much over. But on the other hand, one also have to be careful not to see everything as being so. So a person saying for instance "because you are an atheist, you simply don't understand my religion". This could be seen as a personal attack, but at the same time its a potential valid argument. Just as saying, which I often do in fact . That most religious people turn off their rational and critical thinking abilities whenever they talk about their beliefs. This could also by some be seen as a personal attack, I guess. But to me that is an observation and one that I think is a valid argument as well. So a lot of things comes into play when it comes to personal attacks and it differs from person to person, some are very easy to offend and some less.

Do you or do you not think that it is better to debunk arguments through direct analysis of individual points?

Being able to present clear evidence for why certain arguments don't hold up is clearly better. Just as its better to give an example of something similar and ask the person you are debating whether they agree or disagree with it. None of us know everything for certain, we make mistakes, misunderstand each other, use invalid sources etc. But there is not really any other way to improve once knowledge other than debating them with others and get ones ideas tested, if what a person is saying is true, it should be able to hold up to being questioned.

Does using an ad hominem fallacy actually place the user in a negative light?

Again it depends, if the person is constantly caught lying then no and it can be proven. But if the person is just instantly attacked without anything to back it up it does, I think.

The logic is so bad on the part of those using the logical fallacies, that in one post I posted links to the official JW websites to prove my case, and then JWs objected to my post, told others to rather CHECK OUT THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE TO FIND THE TRUTH!

I have discussed with a JW for almost two years and we also talked about shunning and as you say it on the website, so don't see why they would deny it. The one I discussed with had didn't and obviously made the case that this is supported by the bible, which I guess is correct as you could reach that conclusion. That JWs do not agree that it can have a negative effect on people, which might be what you refer to? is obviously because they are JWs and therefore don't see it that way. You have to remember that JWs purpose is to spread the word of God and to save people, as only those that get saved will experience the new Earth. So for them shunning is seem as a good thing, as it gives them a hope that the person will repent and come back, this is obviously from the perspective of JWs, for the rest of us, we would probably call it a form of torture or a way to manipulate members into not wanting to leave JWs, as the cost can be quite severe. You have to remember that people that grow up in JW have a huge part of their friends and family also in the JWs, so when you get shunned you risk loosing everything. But for them its about saving people from "destruction".

This is just as terrible as what so many other religions do, so pointing out JWs especially as being bad is not really fair, when looking at all the other things going on with the others as well. I don't know exactly how other religious people think about it, it surely varies, but if another Christian look at them and say that is so bad, but then the next day one of the more fanatic ones decide to go shoot a abortion doctor, or what they say when a priest have a go at some children etc. My impression is that this doesn't really affect their beliefs, but rather they might be upset with the priest rather than the whole institution, even when they are caught trying to cover it up etc. I think its very difficult to figure out how exactly logic works when it comes to religious faith and as I started by saying also why I tend to say that they throw out rational and critical thinking about this topic.

 

[Heyo]

Don't feed the trolls.

You can't convince someone who doesn't listen and doesn't want to talk to you. If you have made your case, other people will see it. It doesn't add to your point if you repeat it.

 

[Audie]

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] "

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects."

"A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

I am considered by JW's as an apostate. I left because of research into various things about the group.

When presenting this information to members or other people on this forum, JW's often resort to the above logical fallacies to discredit the information I present. With regards to issues that place the group in a negative light, instead of addressing the information and sources that I provided, they make a blanket statement about the claims being wrong, and say that people shouldn't listen to apostates because they are lying, and address a topic related to a point and not a point itself.

As an example, I often address the negative consequences about the affects of shunning. A JW might say that I have a problem with them disciplining people and the process involved. In fact I made no such statement. I have no problem with discipline. I have a problem types of discipline, in this case shunning because of its negative consequences.

Now I am not saying in this OP that either the JW's or I are wrong on our position of certain matters. One cannot determine that without looking into both of our arguments. What I do have a problem with is saying that my arguments are flawed and I am spreading lies and misinformation just because I am an apostate. That is an ad hominem fallacy and avoids actually addressing the questions I pose.

So my questions to anybody is this:

What is the motivation behind attacking a persons character rather than addressing the issues themselves?

Do you or do you not think that it is better to debunk arguments through direct analysis of individual points?

Does using an ad hominem fallacy actually place the user in a negative light?

The logic is so bad on the part of those using the logical fallacies, that in one post I posted links to the official JW websites to prove my case, and then JWs objected to my post, told others to rather CHECK OUT THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE TO FIND THE TRUTH!

Link to said post:
Can any JWs answer this?

I am sure many others here have come across similar cases from various different types of people. Your thoughts?

To the extent I run across JW, I just look puzzled
and speak a few words of Chinese, they
leave soon enough.

You might want to address the
ad hom fallacy fallacy.

For lo, it is entirely right and fitting to point out
that a person is unqualified or has perjured
himself, if such is the case.

As in dont give lessons if you dont know the
subject matter.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

 

[Samael_Khan]

To the extent I run across JW, I just look puzzled
and speak a few words of Chinese, they
leave soon enough.

You might want to address the
ad hom fallacy fallacy.

For lo, it is entirely right and fitting to point out
that a person is unqualified or has perjured
himself, if such is the case.

As in dont give lessons if you dont know the
subject matter.

The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

Really good point.

This is the part I am referring to:

"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."

In the cases that I am speaking of, it would be said that my arguments are invalid because I am an apostate.
Or that I am an apostate therefore all the links that I posted are lies. Hence why I provided the link to one of the threads to demonstrate

It would be the same when Christians say that JW's are a cult, therefore their arguments are deceptive and wrong. Or they don't believe in the Trinity therefore their understanding of the scriptures are wrong.

Am I right or wrong with my examples.

And again, very good point. Thanks for making me aware of incriminating myself. I hope I haven't.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Don't feed the trolls.

You can't convince someone who doesn't listen and doesn't want to talk to you. If you have made your case, other people will see it. It doesn't add to your point if you repeat it.

Thanks for this. Something to reflect on.

 

[Audie]

Really good point.

This is the part I am referring to:

"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."

In the cases that I am speaking of, it would be said that my arguments are invalid because I am an apostate.
Or that I am an apostate therefore all the links that I posted are lies. Hence why I provided the link to one of the threads to demonstrate

It would be the same when Christians say that JW's are a cult, therefore their arguments are deceptive and wrong. Or they don't believe in the Trinity therefore their understanding of the scriptures are wrong.

Am I right or wrong with my examples.

And again, very good point. Thanks for making me aware of incriminating myself. I hope I haven't.

Actually I missed some of what you point out here,
though I have seen it in the form of, "you are not
a Christian who is guided of god to right bible-readin'
so you cannot be right"

 

[Samael_Khan]

The main reason someone would attack a person rather than the argument is because, if you can show that the person is a "bad" or lying person, their arguments would suffer as well. In some cases it might also be easier to have a go at the person rather than the argument. Personally I think its always best to go for the argument, but if a person countless of times have been caught not telling the truth on purpose and when made aware of it just ignores it, then "attacking" the person for not being trustworthy seems fine to me. So its a balance between those that debate how they want to approach each other. Because if you present your case and the person answering you wont even comment on what you are saying or look at your sources and instantly go for a personal attack then the debate is pretty much over. Because nothing you can say will reach them, but also you have the option to call them out as not being serious, which will put them in a bad spot as as well. But at least in my experience the moment it becomes a personal attack the debate is pretty much over. But on the other hand, one also have to be careful not to see everything as being so. So a person saying for instance "because you are an atheist, you simply don't understand my religion". This could be seen as a personal attack, but at the same time its a potential valid argument. Just as saying, which I often do in fact . That most religious people turn off their rational and critical thinking abilities whenever they talk about their beliefs. This could also by some be seen as a personal attack, I guess. But to me that is an observation and one that I think is a valid argument as well. So a lot of things comes into play when it comes to personal attacks and it differs from person to person, some are very easy to offend and some less.


Being able to present clear evidence for why certain arguments don't hold up is clearly better. Just as its better to give an example of something similar and ask the person you are debating whether they agree or disagree with it. None of us know everything for certain, we make mistakes, misunderstand each other, use invalid sources etc. But there is not really any other way to improve once knowledge other than debating them with others and get ones ideas tested, if what a person is saying is true, it should be able to hold up to being questioned.


Again it depends, if the person is constantly caught lying then no and it can be proven. But if the person is just instantly attacked without anything to back it up it does, I think.

I have discussed with a JW for almost two years and we also talked about shunning and as you say it on the website, so don't see why they would deny it. The one I discussed with had didn't and obviously made the case that this is supported by the bible, which I guess is correct as you could reach that conclusion. That JWs do not agree that it can have a negative effect on people, which might be what you refer to? is obviously because they are JWs and therefore don't see it that way. You have to remember that JWs purpose is to spread the word of God and to save people, as only those that get saved will experience the new Earth. So for them shunning is seem as a good thing, as it gives them a hope that the person will repent and come back, this is obviously from the perspective of JWs, for the rest of us, we would probably call it a form of torture or a way to manipulate members into not wanting to leave JWs, as the cost can be quite severe. You have to remember that people that grow up in JW have a huge part of their friends and family also in the JWs, so when you get shunned you risk loosing everything. But for them its about saving people from "destruction".

This is just as terrible as what so many other religions do, so pointing out JWs especially as being bad is not really fair, when looking at all the other things going on with the others as well. I don't know exactly how other religious people think about it, it surely varies, but if another Christian look at them and say that is so bad, but then the next day one of the more fanatic ones decide to go shoot a abortion doctor, or what they say when a priest have a go at some children etc. My impression is that this doesn't really affect their beliefs, but rather they might be upset with the priest rather than the whole institution, even when they are caught trying to cover it up etc. I think its very difficult to figure out how exactly logic works when it comes to religious faith and as I started by saying also why I tend to say that they throw out rational and critical thinking about this topic.

Very cool and thought provoking points. If a person has been shown to be a liar, it makes a person question whether they should bother even investigating his claims. He has done himself a disservice by lying.

I also like your point on a person not attacking your argument pretty much shows that the debate is over.

JW's do not deny shunning. They don't address the proven psychological negative effects that result from shunning and whether a loving god would want people to shun or not. They tend to discuss strawmen which I actually have no problem with. So I would challenge them on whether it is really a good thing as a few people have committed suicide because of it and they completely ignore that point. I find it very weird. When I was a JW I would address it. But then I did struggle with the logic of shunning and my interpretation of the scriptures used is different to theirs.

The reason why i mentioned JW's is because of my personal experience with them on here. In the real world I have had much worse encounters with Sunni muslims, as they are completely on another level when it comes to these types of fallacious arguments. The ones I encountered were completely closed off mentally and use various other tactics to gain control of an argument. It was akin to bullying. JW's will listen and reason with people in general in a proper manner. When it comes to certain discussions then they won't.

I am also aware that others do this, which is why I asked whether others come across similar cases from various different types of people.

By the way, I also shouldn't generalize with JW's which would be wrong of me. URAVIP2ME and I have decent discussions. Very cool person.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Actually I missed some of what you point out here,
though I have seen it in the form of, "you are not
a Christian who is guided of god to right bible-readin'
so you cannot be right"

Oh yeah. That is a common one. I have heard it from a certain person on here. He said i don't have Holy Spirit so I can't interpret properly and that he does have Holy Spirit. I asked him to prove that he had it. He said that he cannot prove it to me. So I showed that his argument was subjective and he didn't reply after that.

 

[Audie]

Oh yeah. That is a common one. I have heard it from a certain person on here. He said i don't have Holy Spirit so I can't interpret properly and that he does have Holy Spirit. I asked him to prove that he had it. He said that he cannot prove it to me. So I showed that his argument was subjective and he didn't reply after that.

If more than one of them actually got the holy spirit
help they say they do, they would not all disagree
on what the right readin' is.

 

[Samael_Khan]

If more than one of them actually got the holy spirit
help they say they do, they would not all disagree
on what the right readin' is.

Exactly! A whole lot of people claiming to have Holy Spirit. No way for them to prove it.

 

[osgart]

This sounds like the jw's are burying their heads in the sand. So basically they are having the inability to hear an argument that differs from their own points of view.

Is this common to all, most, or just some?

My experience is with fundamental, independent, born again , baptist Christians. Another (God's)/my way or the highway religion. Their attitude is enemy/friend and there is no other grounds of speaking.

So in speaking there is only pressure to conform or be the bad guy.

 

[Samael_Khan]

This sounds like the jw's are burying their heads in the sand. So basically they are having the inability to hear an argument that differs from their own points of view.

Is this common to all, most, or just some?

My experience is with fundamental, independent, born again , baptist Christians. Another (God's)/my way or the highway religion. Their attitude is enemy/friend and there is no other grounds of speaking.

So in speaking there is only pressure to conform or be the bad guy.

To clarify:

Witnesses go out in the ministry all the time, so they are very used to listening to different points of view. Especially the ones that they are trained to refute.

There are specific issues and arguments that they just will not address though. So if one gives them a link to the Australian Royal Commission to show the documented problem they have with 1006 proven or suspected child molesters not being reported to authorities by the Australian Branch of JW's or links to the various lawsuits they to pay because of child molestation charges, then they won't even look at it and brush it off as lies. The same goes with their full history. Thing is, JW's are told not to look at outside sources for news on the organisation and not to engage on online forums to discuss these things. Outside information about the group (besides positive information) should be avoided according to the group.

Now as is evident on this forum, not all Witnesses abide by these rules. It is strange that there are JW's still on this very forum, as many posters here can attest to the fact that there was one point where many JW's left the forum because the Governing Body told them to not belong to such forums.

So when you say "Is this common to all, most, or just some?", it is a complicated issue. Many do investigate outside sources and leave the religion which is evident on the internet. But I would say that most bury their heads in the sand or at least make as if they bury their head in the sand. It depends how indoctrinated they are.

I have also encountered some born again Christians who behaved that way. In fact, as a JW, I encountered many people who wouldn't even talk to me because I was not a Trinitarian. So many Christians do the same thing as well. Heck, I would say that JW's are pretty reasonable considering many topics. At least they will listen and reason in most cases.

 

[osgart]

To clarify:

Witnesses go out in the ministry all the time, so they are very used to listening to different points of view. Especially the ones that they are trained to refute.

There are specific issues and arguments that they just will not address though. So if one gives them a link to the Australian Royal Commission to show the documented problem they have with 1006 proven or suspected child molesters not being reported to authorities by the Australian Branch of JW's or links to the various lawsuits they to pay because of child molestation charges, then they won't even look at it and brush it off as lies. The same goes with their full history. Thing is, JW's are told not to look at outside sources for news on the organisation and not to engage on online forums to discuss these things. Outside information about the group (besides positive information) should be avoided according to the group.

Now as is evident on this forum, not all Witnesses abide by these rules. It is strange that there are JW's still on this very forum, as many posters here can attest to the fact that there was one point where many JW's left the forum because the Governing Body told them to not belong to such forums.

So when you say "Is this common to all, most, or just some?", it is a complicated issue. Many do investigate outside sources and leave the religion which is evident on the internet. But I would say that most bury their heads in the sand or at least make as if they bury their head in the sand. It depends how indoctrinated they are.

I have also encountered some born again Christians who behaved that way. In fact, as a JW, I encountered many people who wouldn't even talk to me because I was not a Trinitarian. So many Christians do the same thing as well. Heck, I would say that JW's are pretty reasonable considering many topics. At least they will listen and reason in most cases.

There are some very civil jw's on this forum. I just dont like the love by way of fear ultimatums i get from those whom have more than a foot in my door with members of my own family.

I will say i would expect that the reasonable approach to such accusations as you mention would be to investigate such accusations from within, and when something of worth can be said, then maybe they would respond.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Thanks for posting this. I think its constructive to know and understand logical fallacies as well as fallacious debating methods such as: Red Herring, Gish Gallop, False Equivocation, etc. Knowledge of topics like this can truly be empowering in assisting us to differentiate truth from lies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

But don't forget this one:

Fallacy fallacy - RationalWiki
(just because an argument is fallacious, that doesn't mean that the claim is invalid).

 

[Nimos]

By the way, I also shouldn't generalize with JW's which would be wrong of me. URAVIP2ME and I have decent discussions. Very cool person.

Just be clear I have nothing against the persons of JWs, those I have talked with have all been very friendly. So im solely talking about their ideas, which to me are clearly wrong. But as every other religious person, I also fully understand why they will defend their beliefs, as its not uncommon.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There are some very civil jw's on this forum. I just dont like the love by way of fear ultimatums i get from those whom have more than a foot in my door with members of my own family.

I will say i would expect that the reasonable approach to such accusations as you mention would be to investigate such accusations from within, and when something of worth can be said, then maybe they would respond.

JWs in general are civil. Acting contrary to that is actually against their belief system. Love by fear is a real thing in the group.

Yes, investigation into the accusations and responding to them would be the best approach for them because it shows that they arent afraid of information. The fact that they dont is a problem.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Just be clear I have nothing against the persons of JWs, those I have talked with have all been very friendly. So im solely talking about their ideas, which to me are clearly wrong. But as every other religious person, I also fully understand why they will defend their beliefs, as its not uncommon.

Most JWs are cool people. I also have a problem with their ideas. Also I have a big problem with the group as an institution.

I myself was on the other end of the argument, defending beliefs. So i understand it too.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Thanks for posting this. I think its constructive to know and understand logical fallacies as well as fallacious debating methods such as: Red Herring, Gish Gallop, False Equivocation, etc. Knowledge of topics like this can truly be empowering in assisting us to differentiate truth from lies.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

But don't forget this one:

Fallacy fallacy - RationalWiki
(just because an argument is fallacious, that doesn't mean that the claim is invalid).

Completely agree with you here. Especially regarding the Fallacy Fallacy.