Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by Finrock »

eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 8:59 am Mosiah 18:9

We covenant to stand as a witness. I do not agree with your analogy Marc. As a matter of fact it seems like a contradiction when presented in a manner opposite of what you are expressing.
I think marc's words are spot on. It is good to remember what it is all about at the end of the day.

We stand as witnesses to Christ when we are willing to act as He did. This generally involves not much in the way of arguing, debating, or contending, but more of returning love for railing or kindness for ridicule. What greater witness is there of Christ than to absorb whatever evil is done to you and through the atonement of Jesus Christ filter that evil and then return it to the world in the form of love, kindness, meekness, gentleness, goodness, etc.?

In addressing an audience at what was then FARMS, Henry B. Eyring stated the following in regards to how we can defend the faith:
Eyring wrote:Because you know that the value of your work lies less in convincing and more in inviting people to seek truth by prayer, you have exemplified another virtue. You have tried to be models of kindness in your dialogue with others, especially with those with whom you disagree. You know that a spirit of contention will drive away the very influence by which they can know truth. That has led you to shun ridicule. It has led you to avoid the temptation of playing to the already converted, seeking their applause by trying to make your adversary appear the fool. It is easy to gain the laughter of an appreciative crowd who delight to see the truth defended with boldness and strength, but you have remembered that the heart you wish to touch may hear derision in that laughter and so turn away. Your civility and gentleness could bless all associations of scholars, whatever they may be studying together.

Elder Hales in a conference talk where he is addressing persecution and dealing with our accusers and defending out faith said:
Elder Hales wrote:Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But to “love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]” (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage...Paul reminded the Corinthians that his preaching was “not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Corinthians 2:4). Because that power resides in the Spirit of the Lord, we must never become contentious when we are discussing our faith. As almost every missionary learns, Bible bashing always drives the Spirit away. The Savior has said, “He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me” (3 Nephi 11:29). More regrettable than the Church being accused of not being Christian is when Church members react to such accusations in an un-Christlike way! May our conversations with others always be marked by the fruits of the Spirit—“love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, [and] temperance” (Galatians 5:22–23). To be meek, as defined in Webster’s dictionary, is “manifesting patience and longsuffering: enduring injury without resentment.”2 Meekness is not weakness. It is a badge of Christian courage.
-Finrock

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10351
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 8:59 am Mosiah 18:9

We covenant to stand as a witness. I do not agree with your analogy Marc. As a matter of fact it seems like a contradiction when presented in a manner opposite of what you are expressing.
To clarify, I am a witness. I have witnessed. I do witness and I have created many topics and blogs to that end. I have not covenanted to engage in jarrings, contentions, disputations, and strifes. Neither do I seek to disabuse anyone of their opinions and beliefs in order to impose on them conformity.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

The first one I would like to try to develop is the fallacy called Slippery Slope:
18. SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino theory) suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.

example: If the Supreme Court allows abortion, next think you know they'll allow euthanasia, and it won't be long before society disposes of all those persons whom it deems unwanted or undesirable.

example: If I let one student interrupt my lecture with a question, then I'll have to let others and, before long, there won't be any time left for my lecture.
I chose this one as I think it is an easy one to see from a Christian perspective. I will say, and probably a couple of times that overall one of the challenges of logical fallacies is that sometimes they're legitimate and really do represent weaknesses in our thought processes. But as in all things deceptive, mixed in with the reasonable will be some that are outright wrong, some that simply can be managed in such a way as to make something appear wrong and others that are targeted to attack religious thought.

Especially interesting in this one is the examples that are used have in fact all been born out. Can we tie them together with a causal association perhaps not with clarity. Consider how many yeas ago Abortion was legitimized. I lived in Oregon when assisted suicide a form of Euthanasia was first passed in this the first state to ever authorize it. Since then it has been approved in Colorado, Montana, Washington D.C. and California.

Netherlands was the first to approve euthanasia but has been joined by Belgium, Colombia, and Luxembourg and assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Canada.
In Belgium:
•Surge in overseas visitors, particularly from France, reported by doctors
•Patients use their EHIC for free assisted suicide within days of arriving
•Last year, 2,023 patients were medically killed in the country (News article)
Many of us remember Jack Kevorkian who started the assisted suicide movement by providing the service illegally. While he went to jail the slippery slope of the situation was that it opened a discussion that eventually found "the crime" he was punished for being legalized in a very few years.

Now the discussion is morphing again. In this op-ed piece the author states:
...But this means that the moral case for assisted suicide depends much more on our respect for people’s own desire to die than on our sympathy for their devastating medical conditions. If participating in a suicide is legally and ethically acceptable, in other words, it can’t just be because cancer is brutal and dementia is dehumanizing. It can only be because there’s a right to suicide.

And once we allow that such a right exists, the arguments for confining it to the dying seem arbitrary at best. We are all dying, day by day: do the terminally ill really occupy a completely different moral category from the rest? A cancer patient’s suffering isn’t necessarily more unbearable than the more indefinite agony of someone living with multiple sclerosis or quadriplegia or manic depression. And not every unbearable agony is medical: if a man losing a battle with Parkinson’s disease can claim the relief of physician-assisted suicide, then why not a devastated widower, or a parent who has lost her only child?

This isn’t a hypothetical slippery slope. Jack Kevorkian spent his career putting this dark, expansive logic into practice. He didn’t just provide death to the dying; he helped anyone whose suffering seemed sufficient to warrant his deadly assistance. When The Detroit Free Press investigated his “practice” in 1997, it found that 60 percent of those he assisted weren’t actually terminally ill. In several cases, autopsies revealed “no anatomical evidence of disease.” (Ross Douthat Credit Josh Haner/The New York Times)
This author sees this process as a definite slippery slope, not just some manufactured accusation of slippery slope. So while within this contained discussion we can see a slippery slope still slipping can we attribute that the slope may have been initiated in some part by abortion? Some do draw a correlation:
Anybody paying attention to what has happened in our nation, and worldwide for that matter, regarding the lack of reverence for the dignity of life, is probably aware of the advances the culture of death has made over the past several decades. Here is some of what has happened:
In 1968, a committee of 13 men at Harvard Medical School endorsed brain death as legal death; in 1981 it was approved by the American Medical Association….

In 1973, abortion was legalized on demand – through all nine months of pregnancy – and has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, not only here in the United States, but around the world….

Jump forward 20 years …

Unbeknownst to most of the general public was a major change that has occurred regarding the administration of food and water via feeding tubes…feeding tubes were redefined as “artificial nutrition and hydration” – and therefore a form of “medical treatment”.
Consequently, the removal of food and water occurs every single day across countless health care facilities throughout the world leaving the elderly, the disabled and countless other medically vulnerable left to die in the most horrific and inhuman way, by dehydration and starvation, which can take up to 2 or more weeks.

In 1994, Oregon legalized physician assisted suicide. Since that time, there have been three additional states that allow doctor assisted suicide….NJ is already in the process of trying to legalize assisted suicide, and there are plans to introduce bills in Pennsylvania, New York and California. In Europe, things are much worse. Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

In Canada, legislation has been recently introduced that would legalize active lethal-injection euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with disabilities….a Canadian ethicist who made headlines stating that it is justifiable to kill terminally ill newborns who are “suffering”. …Belgium, where children with disabilities who are terminally ill are permitted to end their lives if they decide. And there is a growing number of Bioethicists here in the US who believe in the theory that there is such a thing as non-persons and therefore we can justify killing them, even if they never asked to be killed.

As many as one in 33 people now use euthanasia to end their lives, and the number of cases rose from 1,923 in 2006 to nearly 5,000 in 2013. It is thought that in 2014 around 6,000 people could have chosen to die by this means.

You might be entitled to think that what people do in Holland is their business and nothing to do with us in Britain. But you could not be more wrong.

If campaigners have their way, the law will be changed here, too, to allow those who wish to end their life to do so at a time of their choosing. For opponents of euthanasia, this raises grave moral questions, as well as concerns that unscrupulous relatives might take advantage of elderly family members — whose estates they might covet — by encouraging them to end their lives.

...Particularly, in this time of a government controlled health care industry and its focus to contain costs, legalizing physician assisted suicide, aborting the preborn disabled, and euthanizing the elderly, the disabled, and other medically vulnerable, will all be ways of containing costs for them.
Nonetheless in spite of the potential association there is no means truly validate logically that any slippery slope exists. Suppositionally we might conclude such but how do you prove causal association?

I'll end this one here but next will be an actual line of reasoning which potentially shows how we got here using critical thinking skills:

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by eddie »

marc wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:51 am
eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 8:59 am Mosiah 18:9

We covenant to stand as a witness. I do not agree with your analogy Marc. As a matter of fact it seems like a contradiction when presented in a manner opposite of what you are expressing.
To clarify, I am a witness. I have witnessed. I do witness and I have created many topics and blogs to that end. I have not covenanted to engage in jarrings, contentions, disputations, and strifes. Neither do I seek to disabuse anyone of their opinions and beliefs in order to impose on them conformity.
The war goes on Marc, the same war as in the pre-existence, a war between truth and error, the Lord Jesus Christ said He will come with a sword. Call it what you want, error needs correction, especially for those who are seeking truth.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10351
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 11:28 am
marc wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:51 am
eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 8:59 am Mosiah 18:9

We covenant to stand as a witness. I do not agree with your analogy Marc. As a matter of fact it seems like a contradiction when presented in a manner opposite of what you are expressing.
To clarify, I am a witness. I have witnessed. I do witness and I have created many topics and blogs to that end. I have not covenanted to engage in jarrings, contentions, disputations, and strifes. Neither do I seek to disabuse anyone of their opinions and beliefs in order to impose on them conformity.
The war goes on Marc, the same war as in the pre-existence, a war between truth and error, the Lord Jesus Christ said He will come with a sword. Call it what you want, error needs correction, especially for those who are seeking truth.
The war really is about choice. The conflict is between those who seek to do the Lord's will and those who seek to impose their own will. For those seeking truth, Nephi said it best: "have ye inquired of the Lord?" The blind lead the blind and both fall in the ditch. And this brings me full circle with previous posts.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by captainfearnot »

Slippery slope is really just an appeal to probability. The fallacy is in replacing uncertainty with certainty. Yes, slippery slopes can happen, but that doesn't mean they will in all instances.

But I think I get what you're saying. When people get excited about identifying logical fallacies they can go too far and commit their own errors in logic. The fact that the slippery slope error exists does not mean that slippery slopes themselves do not exist. They do, of course.

The fallacy should just remind us that the probabilities of consequences should be taken into account independently as we argue for and against propositions.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

Following is an excerpt from one of my texts from a few years ago. Again to review, my objective is to show that there is a major movement which has at it's core an attack on religious thought. It is associated with philosophical subjects which fall under the Critical Thinking banner that has of late finally reached the grade school level. It is associated with Ethical thinking and logical fallacies. These tools are often used to stifle or manipulate conversations by emphasizing various, often irrelevant, but sometimes relevant interpretations that deflect from religious considerations.

Following is the pudding if you will - ie the proof is in the pudding. The process for using critical thinking is to provide a dictionary of definitions which are very reasonable and you could never disagree with them. However, following is where they show you how to use those definitions to reach a completely theologically evil conclusion.
A Hypothetical Example of Reasoning Through a Complex Ethical Question

Consider, for example, the complex ethical question: Is euthanasia ever ethically justifiable? As people become conversant with the foundations of ethics, we would expect them to reason in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to ethical concepts and principles, the cases and situations to which ethical concepts and principles should be applied, and the need to exclude pseudo-ethical concepts and principles from their ethical reasoning.

Here is a reconstruction of how someone might begin to reason regarding euthanasia, as he or she internalized the foundations of ethical reasoning:
“Some consider euthanasia absolutely wrong in all cases, others regard it as clearly right in some cases, wrong in others, and still others see it as a true ethical dilemma. There are any number of situations in which euthanasia is not justified. To entertain the question of whether it is ever justified, however, we must reflect on the various conditions under which euthanasia seems plausible.

For example, we must consider cases involving people who suffer intense pain from terminal diseases. Within this group are some who plead with us to end their suffering by helping them end their lives (since, though in torment, they cannot end their lives without assistance).
Given the fact that a person so circumstanced is experiencing intense terminal suffering, one significant ethical concept relevant to this question is the concept of cruelty. Cruelty is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary as ‘causing, or of a kind to cause, pain, distress, etc…; the word ‘cruel’ implies indifference to the suffering of others or a disposition to inflict it on others.’

Cruelty, in this case, means ‘of a kind to cause’ unnecessary pain. It means allowing an innocent person to experience unnecessary pain and suffering hen you have the power to alleviate it—without sacrificing something of equal value. Another related ethical concept is compassion. To have compassion is to show deep sympathy for another, accompanied by the urge to help alleviate suffering.

Being compassionate (and avoiding cruelty) requires us to ‘strive to act so as to reduce or end the unnecessary pain and suffering of innocent persons and creatures.’ With this ethical principle in mind, we can seek to determine in what sense, and in what situations, refusing to assist a suffering person should be considered cruel.

Of course, another ethical principle that may be relevant to this issue is, ‘Life is good in itself and should be preserved.’ Most rational persons would argue that, all things being equal, life is good in itself and should be preserved. But that is a different matter from believing that ‘life should be preserved no matter what the circumstances.’ It seems that this absolute principle can be defended only by using theological claims (such as ‘God has absolutely forbidden suicide under any and all conditions’). But this theological belief is relevant only to those who accept the religious doctrines underlying it. It is not an ethical imperative as such and should not be confused with one. No one who rejects a theological belief system—and everyone has this right—need accept any assertions dependent on it.”

This excerpt includes three strengths:
1.) The reasoner identifies the kind of case in which euthanasia is most plausible.
2.) The reasoner identifies relevant ethical concepts and principles.
3) The reasoner recognizes that theological beliefs must not be used in ethical reasoning.

Of course, this reasoning is not “complete.” It does not settle the issue. The issue is too complex to be easily settled. Focusing on specific cases, learning how to identify relevant ethical concepts and principles, learning how to reason within multiple points of view, and learning how to exclude pseudo-ethical concepts are all essential components of skilled ethical reasoning. However, in a complex case such as the one above, further questions will need to be asked. A wide number of actual and possible cases will need to be identified, described, and analyzed. The reasoner will need to consider objections from multiple viewpoints, as well as follow out the implications of each major position. Any number of unique situations might arise in which qualifications or modified ethical judgments are necessary.(© 2003 Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org Miniature Guide to Ethical Reasoning 25)

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

captainfearnot wrote: June 21st, 2017, 11:56 am Slippery slope is really just an appeal to probability. The fallacy is in replacing uncertainty with certainty. Yes, slippery slopes can happen, but that doesn't mean they will in all instances.

But I think I get what you're saying. When people get excited about identifying logical fallacies they can go too far and commit their own errors in logic. The fact that the slippery slope error exists does not mean that slippery slopes themselves do not exist. They do, of course.

The fallacy should just remind us that the probabilities of consequences should be taken into account independently as we argue for and against propositions.
You've nailed it. That's the beauty of the discipline is to subtly conflate the debate identifying the logical fallacies with the reality that the condition of the fallacy is also correct and true.

Scripturally, I find principles in these verses that point to the reality of the slippery slope from a theological perspective but that get undermined from the venues of college mandated courses in Critical thinking:

2 Nephi 28: 7-9,10-11

7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

11 Yea, they have all gone out of the way; they have become corrupted.

12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.
While this one above I consider the closest, these following tangentially illustrate other aspects of the process.
2 Nephi 26:22

22 And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.
This one following is essentially an actual state where 2 Nephi actually takes place in the events of Korihor's life.
Alma 30:53, 60

53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.

60 And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by gclayjr »

captainfearnot,

I agree completely with your response. Maybe that is a problem will all of these fallacies..they are not always fallacies, and sometimes to one who wants to deny relationships, a rhetorical out.
Slippery slope is really just an appeal to probability. The fallacy is in replacing uncertainty with certainty. Yes, slippery slopes can happen, but that doesn't mean they will in all instances.

But I think I get what you're saying. When people get excited about identifying logical fallacies they can go too far and commit their own errors in logic. The fact that the slippery slope error exists does not mean that slippery slopes themselves do not exist. They do, of course.
Was the LDS church falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy when it opposed the ERA in 1978?
. Its deceptively simple language deals with practically every aspect of American life, without considering the possible train of unnatural consequences which could result because of its very vagueness—encouragement of those who seek a unisex society, an increase in the practice of homosexual and lesbian activities, and other concepts which could alter the natural, God-given relationship of men and women.

“b. It would strike at the family, the basic institution of society. ERA would bring ambiguity to the family structure which could encourage legal conflict in the relationship of husbands and wives.

“c. ERA would invite legal action on every conceivable point of conflict between men and women. Its sweeping generalizations could challenge almost every legally accepted social custom, as well as every morally accepted behavior pattern in America.

With a background in Statistics, I am very familiar with the fact that correlation is not necessary causation. However, that does make the opposite true. One should not discount correlation, because in fact underneath, there may be causation. I would submit Brienox's example 2 as an example of that
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.
Surely this simple statistic, does not PROVE it to be true, but it is definitely an indicator, and worth more investigation, which in my belief, may show that this is NOT a fallacy!

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

gclayjr wrote: June 21st, 2017, 12:37 pm captainfearnot,

I agree completely with your response. Maybe that is a problem will all of these fallacies..they are not always fallacies, and sometimes to one who wants to deny relationships, a rhetorical out.
Slippery slope is really just an appeal to probability. The fallacy is in replacing uncertainty with certainty. Yes, slippery slopes can happen, but that doesn't mean they will in all instances.

But I think I get what you're saying. When people get excited about identifying logical fallacies they can go too far and commit their own errors in logic. The fact that the slippery slope error exists does not mean that slippery slopes themselves do not exist. They do, of course.
Was the LDS church falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy when it opposed the ERA in 1978?
. Its deceptively simple language deals with practically every aspect of American life, without considering the possible train of unnatural consequences which could result because of its very vagueness—encouragement of those who seek a unisex society, an increase in the practice of homosexual and lesbian activities, and other concepts which could alter the natural, God-given relationship of men and women.

“b. It would strike at the family, the basic institution of society. ERA would bring ambiguity to the family structure which could encourage legal conflict in the relationship of husbands and wives.

“c. ERA would invite legal action on every conceivable point of conflict between men and women. Its sweeping generalizations could challenge almost every legally accepted social custom, as well as every morally accepted behavior pattern in America.

With a background in Statistics, I am very familiar with the fact that correlation is not necessary causation. However, that does make the opposite true. One should not discount correlation, because in fact underneath, there may be causation. I would submit Brienox's example 2 as an example of that
example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.
Surely this simple statistic, does not PROVE it to be true, but it is definitely an indicator, and worth more investigation, which in my belief, may show that this is NOT a fallacy!

Regards,

George Clay
Thank you! These are excellent examples and each one could be subtly undermined and diminished of significance using the principles of critical thinking, especially the slippery slope fallacy fallacy.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by captainfearnot »

gclayjr wrote: Was the LDS church falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy when it opposed the ERA in 1978?

No, I don't think so. The passage you cited is full of uncertainty: "possible train of unnatural consequences which could result," "could encourage legal conflict," "could challenge..." The church is clear that its opposition to the ERA is based on its estimation of the probability of these undesirable outcomes. We commit the slippery slope fallacy when we assume that to identify the possible negative ramifications of a proposition is the same as demonstrating that those outcomes are certain to occur, which the church does not do here.

gclayjr wrote:One should not discount correlation, because in fact underneath, there may be causation.

Absolutely. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is fallacious because merely identifying the sequence of events is not sufficient to prove a causal relationship. But causes often do precede their effects!

gclayjr wrote:Surely this simple statistic, does not PROVE it to be true, but it is definitely an indicator, and worth more investigation, which in my belief, may show that this is NOT a fallacy!

I think a lot of logical fallacies derive from the heuristics we use in our day-to-day operations. We make a lot of assumptions every day based on life experience, assumptions which more often than not are completely accurate even though they are not necessarily logically sound. Correlation very often does indicate causation, but because this is not always the case, we cannot logically demonstrate causation merely by demonstrating correlation.

Another one of these often useful but logically unsound heuristics is the rule-of-thumb that logically unsound arguments are wrong. They often are, but not always. Therefore, merely pointing out a logical fallacy is not sufficient to prove an argument wrong. This is known as the fallacy fallacy.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

captainfearnot wrote: June 21st, 2017, 3:00 pm
gclayjr wrote: Was the LDS church falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy when it opposed the ERA in 1978?

No, I don't think so. The passage you cited is full of uncertainty: "possible train of unnatural consequences which could result," "could encourage legal conflict," "could challenge..." The church is clear that its opposition to the ERA is based on its estimation of the probability of these undesirable outcomes. We commit the slippery slope fallacy when we assume that to identify the possible negative ramifications of a proposition is the same as demonstrating that those outcomes are certain to occur, which the church does not do here.

gclayjr wrote:One should not discount correlation, because in fact underneath, there may be causation.

Absolutely. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is fallacious because merely identifying the sequence of events is not sufficient to prove a causal relationship. But causes often do precede their effects!

gclayjr wrote:Surely this simple statistic, does not PROVE it to be true, but it is definitely an indicator, and worth more investigation, which in my belief, may show that this is NOT a fallacy!

I think a lot of logical fallacies derive from the heuristics we use in our day-to-day operations. We make a lot of assumptions every day based on life experience, assumptions which more often than not are completely accurate even though they are not necessarily logically sound. Correlation very often does indicate causation, but because this is not always the case, we cannot logically demonstrate causation merely by demonstrating correlation.

Another one of these often useful but logically unsound heuristics is the rule-of-thumb that logically unsound arguments are wrong. They often are, but not always. Therefore, merely pointing out a logical fallacy is not sufficient to prove an argument wrong. This is known as the fallacy fallacy.
You are obviously very talented and of better understanding of the application of logical fallacies than I am. Your two paragraphs are the ones I want to focus on though in this response. You state, "assumptions which more often than not are completely accurate even though they are not necessarily logically sound."

From my perspective this is one of the greatest values, when using logical fallacies, to justify the undermining of religious and theological perspectives. The perspective hyper focuses on the application of purely logical constraints as the proof of the value of an idea or concept.

Religious ideologies in most respects do not follow logical constraints in most of its foundational concepts - such as God, faith in God, turn the other cheek, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; all of these and many, many, more fail the test of validation according to principles of logic. When I was taking this course The following paragraph caused a familiar phrase to be placed in my mind:
Of course, another ethical principle that may be relevant to this issue is, ‘Life is good in itself and should be preserved.’ Most rational persons would argue that, all things being equal, life is good in itself and should be preserved. But that is a different matter from believing that ‘life should be preserved no matter what the circumstances.It seems that this absolute principle can be defended only by using theological claims (such as ‘God has absolutely forbidden suicide under any and all conditions’). But this theological belief is relevant only to those who accept the religious doctrines underlying it. It is not an ethical imperative as such and should not be confused with one. No one who rejects a theological belief system—and everyone has this right—need accept any assertions dependent on it.”
Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, 2003
The phrase was one that most LDS temple goers are familiar with. The Phrase is:

"I said nothing about Father"

I realized that though you could use all variety of flowery positive language to describe ethical thinking paradigms and valid definitions of common positive traits and societal expectations it didn't matter. Once you take GOD out of the equation you can use critical thinking skills to define any outcome you desire by manipulation of the language. Even to the point of suicide being an ethical choice as long as there is no religious thinking to get in the way. From a purely theological perspective and lacking in sound logistical evidences these are the Doctrines of Satan.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

gclayjr wrote: June 21st, 2017, 12:37 pm

Was the LDS church falling into the "slippery slope" fallacy when it opposed the ERA in 1978?
. Its deceptively simple language deals with practically every aspect of American life, without considering the possible train of unnatural consequences which could result because of its very vagueness—encouragement of those who seek a unisex society, an increase in the practice of homosexual and lesbian activities, and other concepts which could alter the natural, God-given relationship of men and women.

“b. It would strike at the family, the basic institution of society. ERA would bring ambiguity to the family structure which could encourage legal conflict in the relationship of husbands and wives.

“c. ERA would invite legal action on every conceivable point of conflict between men and women. Its sweeping generalizations could challenge almost every legally accepted social custom, as well as every morally accepted behavior pattern in America.
Surely this simple statistic, does not PROVE it to be true, but it is definitely an indicator, and worth more investigation, which in my belief, may show that this is NOT a fallacy!

Regards,

George Clay
I have reevaluated this and have a couple of thoughts. First it is astounding that each of the "coulds" have actually occurred which certainly gives credence to the claims of slippery slope. However that is not the primary wonderment I have.

Often, I have noted that the way some people tone down a message is to be less affirmative. The goal is to reduce offense by creating less direct statements of possibility versus probability. I recall having had the same things said to me as a suggestion to mitigate the directness of my posts. So while it is clear that exact definition is not accurately met by the coulds of the message it is possible that we are seeing the the intersection of the reduce offense requirements that society pushes with the calculated softening of tone while at the same time perfectly enunciating the actual risks to be concerned about? Not slippery slope by definition, but definitely slippery slope by insinuation.
Last edited by brlenox on June 22nd, 2017, 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

Onward and upward I would like to introduce the favorite of all who try to shut down conversation and make it about someone else.
9. DAMNING THE SOURCE / AD HOMINEM ( sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself.

example: There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!

example: The American Trial Lawyers Association favors of this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for ordinary citizens.
This one is going to be more challenging as it is a genuinely real consideration. Quite frequently we can observe unnecessary and perhaps mean hearted observations made about someone as a means of casting dispersions. If you become expert at this talent then you run for president. However, just because someone points out a true observation does this make it an Ad Hominem fallacy? In other words does character count? Thoughts and examples please.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by eddie »

Ive been thinking lately and it might have nothing to do with the subject, but I'm jumping in here anyway. This mortal probation is a time to learn how to be celestial beings, meaning kindness, charity, humility, being Christlike in our dealings with our fellow beings.

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

BeNotDeceived wrote: June 20th, 2017, 4:58 pm Image

Is one of my favorite books; my technical education led me to believe I'm predominantly a Analyst, but this book helped me recognize myself as a Synthesist/Idealist. https://www.johnljerz.com/superduper/tl ... id170.html Indeed one of the best books on the subject. Image
Well, looking over the excerpts on the page you linked to at least one thing clearly tosses me into the analyst category as well.
p.123 Not only do Analysts require a lot of data from you, in order to be influenced they also need to give a great deal of it back. It is their way of demonstrating their competence, and feeling competent is important to them. They do that by telling you more about the subject than you ever wanted to know.
Sounds like me...

User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm Ive been thinking lately and it might have nothing to do with the subject, but I'm jumping in here anyway. This mortal probation is a time to learn how to be celestial beings, meaning kindness, charity, humility, being Christlike in our dealings with our fellow beings.
I'm thinking about making this the subject of my next effort. Being Christlike is the goal, no question, however what is Christlike? An actual analysis of his words provides a wide range of behaviors suited to the situation in which he was engaged. He tolerated the women at the well with such beautiful kindness and a soothing, non-judgmental approach. However, try being a pharisee and the commentary against you could be explicit and direct. Then try to be Peter, a man he deeply loved, who sometimes required some challenging tutelage in blunt terms. So...Who is Jesus Christ - -Inquiring Minds Want to Know...Coming to a thread near you.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10351
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm Ive been thinking lately and it might have nothing to do with the subject, but I'm jumping in here anyway. This mortal probation is a time to learn how to be celestial beings, meaning kindness, charity, humility, being Christlike in our dealings with our fellow beings.
Yes! :X Keep pursuing this! Jesus taught exactly how to do this on a certain mount at Jerusalem (and at a certain temple at Bountiful) and then proved it by doing them all His mortal days, which culminated in a final, selfless, ultimate act of pure love. Peter summarized it succinctly in the opening of this second epistle.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by BeNotDeceived »

brlenox wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:45 pm
eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm Ive been thinking lately and it might have nothing to do with the subject, but I'm jumping in here anyway. This mortal probation is a time to learn how to be celestial beings, meaning kindness, charity, humility, being Christlike in our dealings with our fellow beings.
I'm thinking about making this the subject of my next effort. Being Christlike is the goal, no question, however what is Christlike? An actual analysis of his words provides a wide range of behaviors suited to the situation in which he was engaged. He tolerated the women at the well with such beautiful kindness and a soothing, non-judgmental approach. However, try being a pharisee and the commentary against you could be explicit and direct. Then try to be Peter, a man he deeply loved, who sometimes required some challenging tutelage in blunt terms. So...Who is Jesus Christ - -Inquiring Minds Want to Know...Coming to a thread near you.
ImageImage ImageImageImageImageImage
Image

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by gclayjr »

brienox,

I will be your foil. Alma...Zeezrom..Korihor.. Ad Hominem ?

Alma...Zeezrom ALma 11:23-25
Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?

24 Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him.

25 And now thou hast lied before God unto me. Thou saidst unto me—Behold these six onties, which are of great worth, I will give unto thee—when thou hadst it in thy heart to retain them from me; and it was only thy desire that I should deny the true and living God, that thou mightest have cause to destroy me. And now behold, for this great evil thou shalt have thy reward.

Korihor

Alma 30:42
42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.
Regards,

George Clay

PS: And Zeezrom, eventually saw the error of his ways and repented.

User avatar
aspietroll
captain of 50
Posts: 62

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by aspietroll »

A whole lot of this thread falls into the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Can't you explain why liberals are wrong without quoting scripture? That logical fallacy could be used to discredit everyone in this thread.

Critical thinking is just arguing against something by other means. "Critical thinking" that it is not neutral, nor non biased nor non partisan.

The term non partisan is partisan in that the term means, not partisan to one of two parties in the two party system--it grants legitimacy to the 2 party system

And there really is no such thing as non biased when it comes to reporting on politics.

For example. Critical thinking in cultural studies would say that because all nations are equal to one another, you shouldn't have too much favoritism to your own (read: don't let in so called Syrian refugees) because that's a supremacist attitude over the mutual goals of all nations.

The same thought strategy can be done in reverse. All people in all nations express favoritism to their culture, and America should only accept migrants that will express loyalty to America over some other nation.

Image

My friend told me about being taught with this chart in her media literacy class. Media literacy: learn to detect bias in news articles and find the non biased. Let's attack it with critical thinking.

It makes the logical fallacy of grouping several unlike things together and designating them as a category. It claims Breitbart is not even a legitimate news source though that site is 90% of the stuff Breitbart uploads is pages using direct sources like video of an event to back up the article's claims, or the page shares a story from a legitimate news website.

Where would an international outlet like RT fit on here? Liberals would scream it's conservative because RT criticized Hillary Clinton's character but no political scientist would risk his career on calling RT a conservative fringe mouth piece: too many of it's shows are hosted by liberals.

Many of the news outlets listed as minimal partisan on this chart are biased not by what they say, but what they omit when reporting a story.

Example: a headline that says a massacre could had been stopped if someone had a gun is conservative bias. A headline that is the topic of a different massacre leaves out the fact the massacre stopped because someone had a gun isn't displaying bias as obviously.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by Jonesy »

marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:46 am
eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm Ive been thinking lately and it might have nothing to do with the subject, but I'm jumping in here anyway. This mortal probation is a time to learn how to be celestial beings, meaning kindness, charity, humility, being Christlike in our dealings with our fellow beings.
Yes! :X Keep pursuing this! Jesus taught exactly how to do this on a certain mount at Jerusalem (and at a certain temple at Bountiful) and then proved it by doing them all His mortal days, which culminated in a final, selfless, ultimate act of pure love. Peter summarized it succinctly in the opening of this second epistle.
Do you have kids? Do you always treat them with soothing kindness, or does it sometimes take chastising, directness, and 'tough love'? All kids are different, but some need more of the latter approach.

I love my wife because sometimes the only way she can finally get to me is being direct and in chastising me. I've learned to appreciate this more because I've recognized her wisdom as we grow together. Has Christ or even Joseph Smith and other prophets used these approaches? I'm sure whatever they can do to get to our mind and heart is what they do, all in the name of love.

Whatever the case, there's no doubt we should use the least or most gentle means.

But I guess we're getting off topic...

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10351
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by marc »

Jonesy1982 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 8:24 am
marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 4:46 am
eddie wrote: June 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm Ive been thinking lately and it might have nothing to do with the subject, but I'm jumping in here anyway. This mortal probation is a time to learn how to be celestial beings, meaning kindness, charity, humility, being Christlike in our dealings with our fellow beings.
Yes! :X Keep pursuing this! Jesus taught exactly how to do this on a certain mount at Jerusalem (and at a certain temple at Bountiful) and then proved it by doing them all His mortal days, which culminated in a final, selfless, ultimate act of pure love. Peter summarized it succinctly in the opening of this second epistle.
Do you have kids? Do you always treat them with soothing kindness, or does it sometimes take chastising, directness, and 'tough love'? All kids are different, but some need more of the latter approach.

I love my wife because sometimes the only way she can finally get to me is being direct and in chastising me. I've learned to appreciate this more because I've recognized her wisdom as we grow together. Has Christ or even Joseph Smith and other prophets used these approaches? I'm sure whatever they can do to get to our mind and heart is what they do, all in the name of love.

Whatever the case, there's no doubt we should use the least or most gentle means.

But I guess we're getting off topic...
Yes. I am a foster and an adoptive father who took boys off the streets and labored for years to take the streets out of my boys.

User avatar
Jonesy
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1530
Contact:

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by Jonesy »

marc wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 8:44 am
Yes. I am a foster and an adoptive father who took boys off the streets and labored for years to take the streets out of my boys.
That's awesome. Not many more qualified to speak on this than you. So, you can identify with the methods above?
Last edited by Jonesy on June 22nd, 2017, 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
captainfearnot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1966

Re: Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by captainfearnot »

I gave my boys a copy of You Are Not So Smart by David McRaney, to read during rainy days at scout camp a few years ago, and I was surprised at how fascinated they were by it. It's just a Psych 101-level synopsis of several major cognitive biases and logical fallacies, but I guess I was kind of blown away the first time I learned about all that stuff, too.

There is definitely something compelling about those tools and other modes of critical thinking, maybe particularly for math/science-oriented minds. But I don't think we need to make too much of them. It's certainly useful to learn the difference between a well reasoned argument and a cognitively manipulative one, but as we've been over already in this thread, it's not the be-all end-all.

An argument is like a basketball game, and logical fallacies are like fouls. One side doesn't get to claim victory as soon as a foul is committed by the other, and you don't count up fouls at the end of the game to determine the winner. The underlying play is what matters—who is the best at the fundamentals of basketball determines who wins, in spite of the fouls on either side. The fouls are just a reminder that not everything goes, and you need to stop, regroup, and get back to good basketball. In an argument, logical fallacies are just reminders that we need to support our positions more thoroughly, and that the shortcuts we normally rely on in our day-to-day are not always sufficient to prove a point. Still, it's the strength of the underlying position that matters most.

Now, if your entire game is built on fouls, some no-holds-barred version of playground ball, then you are going to be in for a bad time if you try to play a refereed game where fouls are called. You'll soon learn how weak your basketball game really is. Likewise, a position that is fundamentally based on fallacious reasoning deserves to be taken down by the tools of critical thinking.

Applying this to religion, I think there are some ideas and beliefs that can be defended logically and others that cannot. I don't know the best way to deal with that. I think that rather than try and discredit critical thinking as a valuable tool, or morph religious beliefs into something logically sound, it would be better to define the game differently. I like Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria, that science and religion are in separate realms, answering different questions, and employing different methods. That way, religion doesn't need to apologize for not being logical. We can say things like "spiritual truths must be understood spiritually."

Post Reply