Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
brlenox
A sheep in wolf in sheep's clothing
Posts: 2615

Critical Thinking, logical fallacies and other manipulative techniques.

Post by brlenox »

My second thread start - Oh this is so exciting.

There has been an awful lot of banter about logical fallacies, particularly ad hominem, occasionally strawman, and a few other of the more common logical fallacies on the board lately. Almost always they are cited as a means of managing a conversation into ostensibly more cordial tones and dignified conversational technique. However, careful analysis also indicates that this technique has become the very thing it purports to rectify---A means of name calling, ostracizeation, unfavorable grouping of a certain class of debaters, and insinuations of intellectual compromise…under the guise of encouraging uplifting conversation. However, is there more to the story in light of critical thinking skills and how they might be used to manage Gospel discussions?

When I first went to college in the early 80’s, I never recall any classes that I was required to take which focused on the concepts of critical thinking and it’s child Ethical thinking. However, when I returned in the early 2000's they were required for graduation. I am not sure if they did not exist prior, but subsequent research, albeit limited, seems to reinforce that modern ideas concerning critical thinking did not begin to mature and define themselves into college curriculum in a big way until the late 1980’s.

It should be noted that under the banner of critical thinking come the ideologies of logical fallacies. It should be noted that both come under the banner of philosophical disciplines. To start the discussion I submit the following quote to stimulate those philosophical neurons into action:
…new research suggests that whether we believe may also have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these findings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles. (Grewal, Daisy, How Critical Thinkers Lose their Faith in God, Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises, May 1st 2012 accessed from this site: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... faith-god/.)
Is there a reason why some individuals might be drawn to strongly hyper focus on demands of avoiding logical fallacies more so than others? Are constraints of operating within the expectations of logical fallacies conducive or detrimental to Gospel Discussions. I have much more information to introduce but let's see where this goe4s first.

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

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

Post by gclayjr »

Brienox,

My background was applied mathematics (Applied statistics), engineering, and software development. I mostly worked with other engineers with similar backgrounds. I would say that the belief in God, by my co-workers was at least as high, if not higher, than that of the general population, for whatever that is worth.

I often do get into discussions with people about various things including scientific things. I find that many who believe in organic evolution are clueless as to how much "faith" is involved with that. I remember when I was able to bring a glimmer of understanding to one such hardcore believer in Organic evolution.

In a laborious struggle (as I note you have done here , with certain people who don't seem to even be aware of the inconsistency, and incoherence in the "logic" they use to support their assertions) with one "scientific" atheist, I did produce a small "aha" moment. I pointed out that organic evolution begins with inorganic chemicals coming together to form primitive life. There is no fossil evidence of this happening. Nobody has observed it in nature, and despite such experiments as Miller-Urey, nobody has been able to make even the most primitive form of life in a laboratory (life being defined as something that actually reproduces itself).

QED a belief that life somehow emerged from the ooze, based upon some sort of natural forces working upon inorganic chemicals is nothing more than a story requiring a leap of faith just like faith in a creative God. My friend didn't change his atheistic belief in Organic evolution, but at least he recognized that his belief was not factual, but required a leap of faith just like a belief in God.

However, for that one person who did have that minor epiphany there have been many who will still look at me like a deer in the headlights when I point this out, then insist that atheistic organic evolution is based upon scientific fact and that there is no faith involved as us religious people have in a God.

I don't know how many of those who I meet, who passionately assert the facts of organic evolution are truly logical in their thinking, rather than intuitive in their mindset, but all of them at least insist that they are logical. And they seem to be blind to how much they rely on intuition or faith in place of the logic that they believe guides their lives

Regards,

George Clay

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

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

Post by Jonesy »

Although speaking cordially may have nothing to do with our intended message, doing so seems to be advocated by the Brethren these days. I suppose James 3 may come up in the discussion?

I watched a documentary on Netflix called "Magnus" about a chess player who succeeded by his intuition. He became world chess champion at a very young age. Once he honed into his intuition and was able to control his nerves, he became a far superior chess player. Almost unbeatable. I highly recommend it.
Last edited by Jonesy on June 20th, 2017, 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

I'll play. I used to feel the need to jump in other discussions in order to correct inaccurate information. I don't think I ever personally attacked anyone since joining this forum, though. It's just not in my nature anyway. But rather than disabuse anyone of their opinions and/or beliefs, I simply create my own topics of which primarily are my own observations (just the facts, please). I do try to remember to indicate what my beliefs are on a subject when I inject opinions in contrast to topics/posts where I present factual information for anyone it may interest. I have spent the last year and half pleading with the Lord to teach me charity and He has provided ample opportunities for me to learn to love others, listen to them, validate them, and if they ask for my opinion/understanding, I offer it. I don't feel the need to contend with anyone or to engage in disputations whatsoever. If I feel something is important enough to share, I simply create a topic and when I am satisfied I have nothing left to offer on the matter, I just let it go. It really is very liberating.

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 »

marc wrote: June 20th, 2017, 3:41 pm I'll play. I used to feel the need to jump in other discussions in order to correct inaccurate information. I don't think I ever personally attacked anyone since joining this forum, though. It's just not in my nature anyway. But rather than disabuse anyone of their opinions and/or beliefs, I simply create my own topics of which primarily are my own observations (just the facts, please). I do try to remember to indicate what my beliefs are on a subject when I inject opinions in contrast to topics/posts where I present factual information for anyone it may interest. I have spent the last year and half pleading with the Lord to teach me charity and He has provided ample opportunities for me to learn to love others, listen to them, validate them, and if they ask for my opinion/understanding, I offer it. I don't feel the need to contend with anyone or to engage in disputations whatsoever. If I feel something is important enough to share, I simply create a topic and when I am satisfied I have nothing left to offer on the matter, I just let it go. It really is very liberating.
It is a difficult choice, well at least for me but somehow I feel like this observation has to come to bear:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke
Many years ago I worked for a man as his Store Director. He was a very aggressive person who just walked all over everyone and generally it was in angry tones that were just very demeaning. He promoted me, to, as he said be a buffer between his rash and angry behavior and the rest of the store personnel. In other words he would dish it out to me and then I had to make it respectable and get results without his level of offense. One day a couple of years into this arrangement, he met me at the door as I was showing up to work in a complete tirade and for one of the few times ever it was directed at me. I had mentioned the day before that I was going into the head office to meet with the head dude. It was about advancing my career. However, in the few hours between when I notified him he had worked himself into a tizzy that I was spying on him in behalf of the head office, which could not be further from the truth. However, the way it unfolded I learned something I had never realized. He was not very good with people in general, a very funny man, but only from a distance. He did not like to do hard things such as correct others, or follow-up and get results or otherwise engage in managerial functions.

What I learned was that he had to have his anger as the impetus to get over the discomfort he felt dealing with things rationally. I made the personal commitment and have adhered to it ever since that I would always try to do the right thing and that I would do it with calmness and self-control.

My tendency to be bold and perhaps corrective is not manifest near to the level it could be on LDSFF. I have no difficulty with most peoples opinions or thoughts. However, I have always felt that those who will target the prophets are harming others. If there was a chance I would not want evil to triumph because I did nothing. There are plenty of those with the overly nice and pleasant attitude on LDSFF, however I do not observe them making much improvement on attitudes that affect testimonies. I am glad they are here because we need those people they perform a valuable service and are suitable for certain interactions. Whether realized or not we need a few of the defenders on this forum as well and in fact the forum has changed dramatically since the days of Snuffer and in part I think that may be the efforts of the direct unyielding types that essentially made it uncomfortable for that crowd. Maybe because of the perceived contention, if that what some want to think but I think they simply could not bear the truth and found a less challenging environment.

It is partially the internet environment and partially political correctness that fosters our current standards for justifying many instances of contention. Certainly not saying this is always the case but I do feel that while I do get a bit snarky or sarcastic, generally I am simply being "farmer" direct. Kind of a say it like it is for the sake of getting the point exactly across but I am in no way the least agitated or intending to agitate another. We have fostered an environment were to be direct is considered rude because you may someone's feelings. However that is a unique dynamic of the past two or three generations. Previous ones required candid interaction.
Last edited by brlenox on June 20th, 2017, 5:13 pm, 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 »

gclayjr wrote: June 20th, 2017, 2:18 pm Brienox,

My background was applied mathematics (Applied statistics), engineering, and software development. I mostly worked with other engineers with similar backgrounds. I would say that the belief in God, by my co-workers was at least as high, if not higher, than that of the general population, for whatever that is worth.

I often do get into discussions with people about various things including scientific things. I find that many who believe in organic evolution are clueless as to how much "faith" is involved with that. I remember when I was able to bring a glimmer of understanding to one such hardcore believer in Organic evolution.

In a laborious struggle (as I note you have done here , with certain people who don't seem to even be aware of the inconsistency, and incoherence in the "logic" they use to support their assertions) with one "scientific" atheist, I did produce a small "aha" moment. I pointed out that organic evolution begins with inorganic chemicals coming together to form primitive life. There is no fossil evidence of this happening. Nobody has observed it in nature, and despite such experiments as Miller-Urey, nobody has been able to make even the most primitive form of life in a laboratory (life being defined as something that actually reproduces itself).

QED a belief that life somehow emerged from the ooze, based upon some sort of natural forces working upon inorganic chemicals is nothing more than a story requiring a leap of faith just like faith in a creative God. My friend didn't change his atheistic belief in Organic evolution, but at least he recognized that his belief was not factual, but required a leap of faith just like a belief in God.

However, for that one person who did have that minor epiphany there have been many who will still look at me like a deer in the headlights when I point this out, then insist that atheistic organic evolution is based upon scientific fact and that there is no faith involved as us religious people have in a God.

I don't know how many of those who I meet, who passionately assert the facts of organic evolution are truly logical in their thinking, rather than intuitive in their mindset, but all of them at least insist that they are logical. And they seem to be blind to how much they rely on intuition or faith in place of the logic that they believe guides their lives

Regards,

George Clay
From the reading I have done, one of the arguments to benefit the most by creating a negative stigma around faith based evaluation of information was the theory of evolution. As we go further into this topic I will also show other completely evil practices that have now become far more mainstream due to principles of critical thinking and the associated logical fallacies.

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

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

Post by BeNotDeceived »

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

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 »

This is a very short list of the more popular logical fallacies I have highlighted a few that I think have value but can be obfuscators to justifying discussion concerning truth as it relates to the Gospel.
1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.

example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.

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.

2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances.

example: Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest sorority on campus.

example: I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.

3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used as the basis for a broader generalization.

example: All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for his autograph in a restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told me to get lost.

example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!

4. FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects.

example: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

example: Banning "head" shops from selling drug paraphernalia in order to curb drug abuse makes about as much sense as banning bikinis to reduce promiscuity.

5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."

example: We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not.

example: The new form of experimental chemotherapy must be working; not a single patient has returned to complain.

6. BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy) assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is, something is either a member of one or the other, but not both or some third category.

example: Either you favor a strong national defense, or you favor allowing other nations to dictate our foreign policy.

example: It’s not TV. It’s HBO.

7. FALSE DILEMMA: (a form of bifurcation) implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences.

example: Either you buy a large car and watch it guzzle away your paycheck, or you buy a small car and take a greater risk of being injured or killed in the event of an accident.

example: You can put your money in a savings account, in which case the IRS will tax you on the interest, and inflation will erode the value of your money, or you can avoid maintaining a savings account in which case you will have nothing to fall back on in a financial emergency.

8. FAULTY SIGN: (also includes argument from circumstance) wrongly assumes that one event or phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of another event or phenomenon.

example: the cars driving in the opposite direction have their lights on; they must be part of a funeral procession.

example: That guy is wearing a Raiders jacket and baggy pants. I’ll bet he’s a gang member.

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.

10. TU QUOQUE: (look who's talking or two wrongs make a right) pointing to a similar wrong or error committed by another.

example: Gee, Mom and Dad, how can you tell me not to do drugs when you both smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol?

example: The United States has no business criticizing the human rights policies of the Third World nations, not as long as discrimination and segregation continue to exist in the United States.

11. EQUIVOCATION: allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).

example: Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.

example: No one who has the slightest acquaintance with science can reasonably doubt that the miracles in the Bible actually took place. Every year we witness countless new miracles in the form recombinant DNA, micro-chips, organ transplants, and the like. (the word "miracle" does not have the same meaning in each case)

12. BEGGING THE QUESTION: (petitio principii) entails making an argument, the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven assumption. In question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX QUESTION.

example: Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.

example: Have you stopped beating your wife?

13. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.

example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.

example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on this, it will only further prove what a disagreeable person you are.

14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: (ipse dixit also called ad verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being offered.

example: If it's good enough for (insert celebrity's name here), it's good enough for me.

example: Laws against marijuana are plain silly. Why, Thomas Jefferson is known to have raised hemp on his own plantation.

15. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ad verecundiam) based on the principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions.

example: Of course we have to play "pomp and circumstance" at graduation, because that's always been the song that is played.

example: Why do I make wine this way? Because my father made wine this way, and his father made wine this way.

16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.

example: all I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.

example: Professor Windplenty's test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.

17. STRAW MAN: stating an opponent's argument in an extreme or exaggerated form, or attacking a weaker, irrelevant portion of an opponent's argument.

example: A mandatory seat belt law could never be enforced. You can't issue citations to dead people.

example: What woman in her right mind could truly desire total equality with men? No woman wants the right to be shot at in times of war, the right to have to pay alimony, or the right to have to use the same restrooms as men.

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.

19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES: A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.

example: Husband to ex-wife: Well, if you want to be completely fair about dividing everything up, you should get one of my testicles and I should get one of your breasts!

example: Debtor to creditor: Hey, you've already repossessed my car and my television. Why don't you just draw a quart of blood or carve a pound of flesh from my heart too?

20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.

example: If you had only tasted the stewed snails, I'm sure you would have liked them.

example: If Hitler had not invaded Russia and opened up two military fronts, the Nazis would surely have won the war.

21. NON SEQUITAR: (literally means "does not follow") in a general sense any argument which fails to establish a connection between the premises and the conclusion may be called a non-sequitar. In practice, however, the label non-sequitar tends to be reserved for arguments in which irrelevant reasons are offered to support a claim.

example: I wore a red shirt when I took the test, so that is probably why I did so well on the test.

example: Mr Boswell couldn't be the person who poisoned our cat, Truffles, because when I used to take Truffles for walks he always smiled and said "Hello" when we walked by.

22. RED HERRING: attempting to hide a weakness in an argument by drawing attention away from the real issue. A red herring fallacy is thus a diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated. The name of the fallacy comes from the days of fox hunting, when a herring was dragged across the trail of a fox in order to throw the dogs off the scent.

example: accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Ned replies "Nothing I do ever pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then you said you didn't like the color."

example: There's too much fuss and concern about saving the environment. We can't create an Eden on earth. And even if we could, remember Adam and Eve got bored in the Garden of Eden anyway!

23. INCONSISTENCY: advancing an argument that is self-contradictory, or that is based on mutually inconsistent premises.

Example: A used car salespersons says, "Hey, you can’t trust those other car salesman. They’ll say anything to gt you to buy a car from them."

Example: A parent has just read a child the story of Cinderella. The child asks, "If the coach, and the footmen, and the beautiful clothes all turned back into the pumpkin, the mice, and the rags, then how come the glass slipper didn’t change back too?"
Any thoughts on how the ones I've highlighted or any others that I did not can be used to invalidate Gospel discussions?

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. --President J. Reuben Clark
I have observed from scripture that prophets (and even Jesus) never needed defending. Such witnesses and messengers are by nature (new creatures having been sanctified) meek, patient, kind, charitable and longsuffering, capable of turning the other cheek when attacked. They suffer the will of the Lord unto the mocking of fools and persecuting of evildoers. They are able to persuade and never resort to control or compulsion. Truth cuts its own way and those who have received the Holy Ghost and have taken It for their guide do not need to fear truth.

The Prophet Joseph taught,
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.”--Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, vol. 14, #38, p 593-595
If one is to become as God, one must learn to know God's will by the Holy Ghost. One must become one with God so as to become one with each other. Prophets do not render the Holy Ghost obsolete, but the Holy Ghost bears witness of truth. The only reason to have "official interpretations" of doctrine or of the scriptures is to make it so that those who don't have the Holy Ghost can understand the scriptures, but the things of God can only be understood by the Holy Ghost so if the interpretations are understandable without the Holy Ghost, they are not of God and if they are of God, then they don't solve the problem for which they were supposedly produced, ie, to make the scriptures understandable by those who don't have the Holy Ghost. Therefore, if one does not have the Holy Ghost anyway, truth is not efficacious in his life and he has harmed himself because of ignorance. Therefore in no case is any official interpretation justified (for any good reason, anyway) and the real reason for such interpretations is to enforce or at least impose conformity (speaking of manipulative techniques).

Nephi admonished his brothers to inquire of the Lord, but they would not. Nephi was then left to expound his father's dreams (of which He obtained interpretations directly from God) to them, which were not efficacious in their lives anyway. So there is no need to protect the ignorant who will not seek the Lord but are content to be informed even if they are informed correctly without the Holy Ghost.
D&C 45:56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.
Follow the prophet if you will, but if you do not seek the Lord and take His Spirit for your guide, it is folly.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

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

Post by Rose Garden »

I took a rhetoric class as one of my final classes in University. I passed the class barely but I didn't "get" it. I was able to spit out the right answers at the right times but I didn't understand the basic concepts at all. I was glad to put that chapter behind me and get on with changing dirty diapers and putting bandaids on skinned knees.

After years of conversing on this forum and having my beliefs challenged both by the informed and the uninformed, I can tell you a few things about rhetoric. The most poignant lessons have come from personal failure. I've identified many ways in which I skillfully dodged truth with more dexterity than an entire troop of gymnasts. I made these realizations in my effort to understand truth myself.

My faith in God very well might be unshakable at this point in my life. I may be delusional but I would consider myself far more rational now than ever before. For me, I would say faith and logic have developed together, for the most part. I think that when it's impossible for both faith in God and logic to work together, it's because an incorrect concept exists about one or the other.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

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

Post by braingrunt »

I personally think that the "appealing to extremes" "fallacy" is actually a very valid and useful part of critical thinking. It is very useful in computer programming, in "finding the problem". You always ask about the border cases and feel along edges of a problem, or you make a fool of yourself.

When you challenge a person with an extreme, they need to be able to tell you why they stop shy of that extreme in a non-arbitrary way... or else their thinking is not in fact logical. If they refuse to define boundaries logically and then appeal to this supposed fallacy to shut you down, it is they who are actually failing.

User avatar
aspietroll
captain of 50
Posts: 62

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

Post by aspietroll »

Those of us that are naturally inquisitive see the logical fallacies in these "critical thinking" courses

One of them is these courses group un-similar ideas or topics into one category which is to be ridiculed.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

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

Post by eddie »

So logical thinking people reach conclusions based on fact not emotion?
How does common sense relate to logical or critical thinking?

I'm just something the cat drug in, no degrees, high school diploma with an average intellect. My family runs its own business, which has been very successful, employing those with degrees and superior intellect but lacking common sense. They make good employees when directed by someone who can see the big picture without over analyzing and complicating a situation, people who can make a decision based on just plain old common sense.

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

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

Post by Jonesy »

I suppose I had an Ad Hominem fallacy argument today:

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtop ... 59#p789426

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

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

Post by Jonesy »

I'm a little slow...

Interesting. I see where you're going with this. Some of these do seem against God's ways. Maybe they should be called Adam-and-Eve's-Fall-acies, or man's fall-acies from God.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

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

Post by Alaris »

There are two critically important and almost equally important goals that are often at odds in these forums and need not be:

1. Learning truth
2. Loving others

Both are essential to the plan of salvation and the devil usually attacks us from both angles. Despite it all it is not that difficult to honor both in posting.

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 »

alaris wrote: June 20th, 2017, 10:08 pm There are two critically important and almost equally important goals that are often at odds in these forums and need not be:

1. Learning truth
2. Loving others

Both are essential to the plan of salvation and the devil usually attacks us from both angles. Despite it all it is not that difficult to honor both in posting.
Perhaps from a perspective this is so, but I am not sure where this ties into the OP. In fact I am kind of getting a sense that some seem to be just responding to me...are you trying to say that I'm not learning truth or loving others just on account of my posting style? /:)

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 »

aspietroll wrote: June 20th, 2017, 7:31 pm Those of us that are naturally inquisitive see the logical fallacies in these "critical thinking" courses

One of them is these courses group un-similar ideas or topics into one category which is to be ridiculed.
Precisely. That is the point I am hoping to get to is to examine the critical thinking arguments with our own natural critical thinking skills and discern where they fall apart or where they prove to be even more insidious in their intent. Are they by chance at their core designed to undermine religious theory all together?

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 »

Jonesy1982 wrote: June 20th, 2017, 9:43 pm I'm a little slow...

Interesting. I see where you're going with this. Some of these do seem against God's ways. Maybe they should be called Adam-and-Eve's-Fall-acies, or man's fall-acies from God.
Oh it becomes far more apparent once we start looking at the actual recommendations within the critical thinking material. I hope to get there but I find this is a challenge to respond to everyone's comments and move the discussion forward at the same time. I may have to pass on some of the post's just to get where I hope to get to.

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 20th, 2017, 8:09 pm So logical thinking people reach conclusions based on fact not emotion?
How does common sense relate to logical or critical thinking?

I'm just something the cat drug in, no degrees, high school diploma with an average intellect. My family runs its own business, which has been very successful, employing those with degrees and superior intellect but lacking common sense. They make good employees when directed by someone who can see the big picture without over analyzing and complicating a situation, people who can make a decision based on just plain old common sense.
One of the issues with the critical thinking philosophy is it is primarily designed to tell you how to think. How to think to be acceptable to your piers by working within a pretty tight frame of reference. In it's subtle way it completely eviscerates an individuals development of actual thinking skills.

You have actually avoided the indoctrination. To a greater extent I presume because you seem to be old enough to miss the current level of indoctrination which has now moved to the grade school level. They are now doing critical thinking skills training with 6 year olds. This I believe is part of the issue with the mass drop in the Church of some of the 35 and under age groups. As the OP states teaching critical thinking causes people to be less inclined to believe in God. That alone should clue us in to the insidious nature of this "higher" level of thinking which has affected each college student since '89 who has been indoctrinated to the discipline. As it spreads so will the increase of those that deny God.

User avatar
Alaris
Captain of 144,000
Posts: 7354
Location: Present before the general assembly
Contact:

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

Post by Alaris »

brlenox wrote: June 20th, 2017, 10:17 pm
alaris wrote: June 20th, 2017, 10:08 pm There are two critically important and almost equally important goals that are often at odds in these forums and need not be:

1. Learning truth
2. Loving others

Both are essential to the plan of salvation and the devil usually attacks us from both angles. Despite it all it is not that difficult to honor both in posting.
Perhaps from a perspective this is so, but I am not sure where this ties into the OP. In fact I am kind of getting a sense that some seem to be just responding to me...are you trying to say that I'm not learning truth or loving others just on account of my posting style? /:)
So if I am pointing out that your not being sure whether I'm responding to the OP or just responding to you is the same thing which fallacy is that? ;)

Just kidding

My point is that ad hominem and manipulation are symptoms of a deeper problem.

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 »

marc wrote: June 20th, 2017, 5:08 pm
If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. --President J. Reuben Clark
I have observed from scripture that prophets (and even Jesus) never needed defending. Such witnesses and messengers are by nature (new creatures having been sanctified) meek, patient, kind, charitable and longsuffering, capable of turning the other cheek when attacked. They suffer the will of the Lord unto the mocking of fools and persecuting of evildoers. They are able to persuade and never resort to control or compulsion. Truth cuts its own way and those who have received the Holy Ghost and have taken It for their guide do not need to fear truth.

The Prophet Joseph taught,
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.”--Joseph Smith, Millennial Star, vol. 14, #38, p 593-595
If one is to become as God, one must learn to know God's will by the Holy Ghost. One must become one with God so as to become one with each other. Prophets do not render the Holy Ghost obsolete, but the Holy Ghost bears witness of truth. The only reason to have "official interpretations" of doctrine or of the scriptures is to make it so that those who don't have the Holy Ghost can understand the scriptures, but the things of God can only be understood by the Holy Ghost so if the interpretations are understandable without the Holy Ghost, they are not of God and if they are of God, then they don't solve the problem for which they were supposedly produced, ie, to make the scriptures understandable by those who don't have the Holy Ghost. Therefore, if one does not have the Holy Ghost anyway, truth is not efficacious in his life and he has harmed himself because of ignorance. Therefore in no case is any official interpretation justified (for any good reason, anyway) and the real reason for such interpretations is to enforce or at least impose conformity (speaking of manipulative techniques).

Nephi admonished his brothers to inquire of the Lord, but they would not. Nephi was then left to expound his father's dreams (of which He obtained interpretations directly from God) to them, which were not efficacious in their lives anyway. So there is no need to protect the ignorant who will not seek the Lord but are content to be informed even if they are informed correctly without the Holy Ghost.
D&C 45:56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.
Follow the prophet if you will, but if you do not seek the Lord and take His Spirit for your guide, it is folly.
I have put a couple of hours into a response to your post Marc, but I may have to let it set a bit. I am trying to continue the direction into the Logical fallacies and this may need to wait a bit as I can't address everyone as well as I would like. My apologies. I will say however that the essence of post was illustrating a different perception than you have put forth. Starting with the Gibbionites of Joshua's oath to let live to God's defense of that oath several generations later when Saul broke and killed many of the people. God stepped in and defended the words of his prophet. There are a few others but the essence is that defending Christ's servants is defending Christ something similar to a covenant we make in the temple. There are Sons of Perdition who will only be such because they knowingly killed the prophets. Though the defense is delayed surely we can see that God and Christ will avenge and defend all of their prophets. Over and Over we are reminded of those who slew the prophets. They are going to be defended and glorified
because they defended Christ in their testimonies.

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 »

alaris wrote: June 20th, 2017, 10:47 pm
brlenox wrote: June 20th, 2017, 10:17 pm
alaris wrote: June 20th, 2017, 10:08 pm There are two critically important and almost equally important goals that are often at odds in these forums and need not be:

1. Learning truth
2. Loving others

Both are essential to the plan of salvation and the devil usually attacks us from both angles. Despite it all it is not that difficult to honor both in posting.
Perhaps from a perspective this is so, but I am not sure where this ties into the OP. In fact I am kind of getting a sense that some seem to be just responding to me...are you trying to say that I'm not learning truth or loving others just on account of my posting style? /:)
So if I am pointing out that your not being sure whether I'm responding to the OP or just responding to you is the same thing which fallacy is that? ;)

Just kidding

My point is that ad hominem and manipulation are symptoms of a deeper problem.
Good question, thanks for the clarification. If you can think of any examples that would be great.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

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

Post by marc »

20 Behold what the scripture says—man shall not smite, neither shall he judge; for judgment is mine, saith the Lord, and vengeance is mine also, and I will repay.
Good morning, brlenox. My post simply addressed your previous reply to me, getting to the root of the matter. I have no need to disabuse you of your need to defend others, including the prophet (or to address logical fallacies). The Lord will defend His own as He sees fit, our own opinions and manipulations notwithstanding. The best we can really do for another if we truly love them is to persuade them to seek the Lord. Laman and Lemuel followed two prophets literally and it got them nowhere because they did not seek the Lord nor did they seek truth nor did they take the Spirit for their guide. Nephi never needed to defend his father nor himself and suffered himself to be abused and also to be tied on the ship and be subject to the Lord's will unto their repentance, seeing they would all be destroyed if they did not repent, though it did no good (to the offenders) in the end. To persuade others to repent and come unto Christ armed only with love and truth is the most charitable thing we can do for another. Engaging in disputations and contentions (and thus defenses) is futile, and the Lord has commanded we avoid it. He did say agree with thine adversary lest he esteem thee to be thine enemy. I think we both can agree to love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. Hopefully it means to do precisely His will and not to do what precisely isn't his will.

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

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

Post by gclayjr »

Alaris,
There are two critically important and almost equally important goals that are often at odds in these forums and need not be:

1. Learning truth
2. Loving others

Both are essential to the plan of salvation and the devil usually attacks us from both angles. Despite it all it is not that difficult to honor both in posting.
Maybe not as often at odds as one might think. People think that it is a personal attack, (ad Homenem) when you refute their ideas. So many are so invested in their ideas, that an attack on an idea, becomes twisted in their minds into an attack on themselves. (That idea is incoherent, becomes YOU are stupid, or some other idea in the mind of the beholder).

More importantly, getting one's panties in a twist and getting offended serves an even greater purpose. One can avoid dealing with those inconsistencies and heresies one is invested in, and deflect everything by accusing someone of not "showing Love" and engaging in "personal attacks". If I had a nickel for every time someone said something like "I'm not going to discus this any more with you because you are engaged in personal insults .....",

I would like to ask,, Did Jacob love Sherem? Did Alma Love Nehor? If you asked Sherem when he was talking to Jacob would he have SAID that Jacob was mean? Would Nehor have SAID that Alma loved him?

Regards,

George Clay

Post Reply