Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on March 29, 1999 at 11:39:22 {79YAW9JMpc1eqO7FqArUMWlbkYYamxmSw}:
In Reply to: Request To aLL !? posted by rOMgABE on March 29, 1999 at 09:26:12:
In addition to Jan's response, here is something I wrote a few months back on this subject, along with JW examples:
There is a great web site that teaches elementary logic.
I have taken a list of common logic fallacies, and how they apply in argumentation, and changed the examples to fit the JW world. This has all been posted in the past, but as these rules keep being violated by the JW's who post here, this can be a good reminder.
Here are the sorts of arguments that all should avoid:
Ad Hominem Attacks (argumentum ad hominem): attacking a person's character instead of the content of that person's argument.
"Ray Franz is an apostate, so of course you can't believe what he says."
Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam): concluding that something is true since you can't prove it is false.
"There must be a God, since no one can demonstrate that he does not exist."
Appeal To Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): appealing to a person's unfortunate circumstance as a way of getting someone to accept a conclusion.
"Don't be so hard on the Governing Body, they are old, decrepit men."
Argumentum Ad Populum: going along with the crowd in support of a conclusion.
"All JW's loyally avoid criticizing the WTS, and instead wait on Jehovah."
Appeal To Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): appealing to a popular figure who is not an authority in that area.
"The Writing Department doesn't believe in evolution, therefore it must be false."
Non Sequitur (irrelevant conclusion): drawing a conclusion which does not follow from the evidence.
"I was going to take one more house, then changed my mind. It turned out there was a killer behind that door, so I must have a guardian angel."
False Cause (post hoc ergo procter hoc): inferring a causal connection based on mere correlation.
"The number of times in Daniel, multiplied by days in Revelation, based on the year-for-a-day rule in Numbers leads to the conclusion that the end began in 1914."
Begging The Question (petitio principii): implicitly using your conclusion as a premise.
"God must exist since the Bible says that God exists, and the Bible is true because God wrote it."
Red Herring: introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject.
"WTS publications never contain lies, and, besides, they have beautiful, four-color illustrations."
Straw Man: distorting an opposing view so that it is easy to refute.
"You should avoid apostates, since apostates believe in human sacrifice."
Seeker