Poisoning the well (Special Canada 150th Edition)

Powerhouse theatre

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

This fallacy discredits the opposition before they have stated a single word. (163). At its crudest form it consists in making unpleasant comments about intellectual opposition. (163).

Pirie explains as example (163) that if a person states that everyone other than an idiot can reason that not enough money is spent on education, this person poisons the well for someone that suggests enough money is spent on education.

Canada 150th Anniversary fallacy, examples

American: A nation that does not hold to a republic, in our case, a constitutional federal republic as a form of government, is a nation of idiots!

Canadian: We do not hold to a republic, as a form of government, we hold to a federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy.

British: We do not hold to a republic, as a form of government, we hold to a parliamentary constitutional monarchy.
---

I am not an expert on political science. But from intellectuals and academics I have heard and read, there are opinions that the American political system is superior for maintaining freedom and democracy, while others reason a British (Canada included) parliamentary system provides more freedom and democracy. It is difficult to measure in many cases.

I do not claim to know the answer, definitively and definitely, but it seems to me that often the nature of laws passed within those systems and societies and how they are regulated will have more to do with the level of freedom and democracy, than the technical systems used.

The levels of freedom of religion, for example, would largely depend on how a constitution, if there is one, is interpreted, and the laws sanctioned by governments and societies within a system.

A constitution, as in the United States of America or Canada, is not a guarantee of greater religious freedom.
---

Canadian: Any nation that does not have hockey as its favourite sport, is a nation of idiots!

American: Our favourite sport is football (National Football League).

British: Our favourite sport is football, real football, not what the Americans call football.
---

I reason this fallacy uses ad hominem attacks (against the person). Logically fallacious agrees:

Logically fallacious

'Poisoning the Well (also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)

Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

Logical Form: Adverse information (be it true or false) about person 1 is presented. Therefore, the claim(s) of person 1 will be false.'

A one-sided argument

Bolton, England, trekearth.com

A one-sided argument

Preface

Tuesday, September 07, 2021 Cherry picking fallacy

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

One-sided argument

Many decisions persons may weigh in have advantages and disadvantages. The fallacy of one-sided assessment is fallen into when only one side of a case is taken into consideration. (158).

Pros and cons should be evaluated in order to make judgements based on the balance. (158-159). This fallacy can err on only counting the advantages or disadvantages in regard to an issue. Relevant material is omitted from arguments in order to achieve a one-sided argument. (159). This entry is quite similar to the previous entry I reviewed from Pirie: Omitting the benefit.

Providing two or more sides on an argument and supporting theology and philosophy with methodology was very much emphasized to me within my British academic studies at the University of Wales.

Besides this approach providing more potential objectivity, at least, in the evaluation if arguments; it also disciplines the academic mind to reasonably consider alternative views. This is an approach which in theory should make an academic less biased and partisan, but unfortunately at times within academia, supposed objectivity and reason can be limited to within a school of thought and its worldview.

This occurred when I attended the University of Manchester as my kind tutor was away for the year. My developing Reformed views on theodicy were deemed academically unacceptable by the temporary tutors. Instead, I was to embrace secular perspectives in regard to theodicy.

I was to embrace, one-sided  premises and conclusions determined by the academy. Thankfully, the University of Wales, equally prestigious in the fields of Theology and Philosophy of Religion, provided more academic freedom.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press.

That idea would go over like an atomic bomb: Omitting the benefit

That idea would go over like an atomic bomb: Omitting the benefit

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Omitting the benefit

When evaluating the benefits of an activity, both the good and bad consequence, should be considered. (157).

If each may exist.

A surprisingly (157) common fallacy consists of omitting the benefits produced by an activity or proposal and counting only the adverse consequences. (157).

The author's expertise on fallacies is abundant. But within western society, it is no surprise to me that many omit the benefits of views found disagreeable.

Pirie states that for example, many people have reasons for drinking, smoking and eating questionable foods. (158). The reasons for these should be addressed by campaigns that oppose. (158).

Agreed. This would be an attempt at presenting objectively reasoned premises and conclusions for and against certain concepts, philosophy, beliefs and activities. As opposed to rather emotionally held to premises and conclusions.

Pirie example:

'We should ban mountaineering because it is too dangerous. Several people are killed or injured doing it every year.' (157).

That idea would go over like an atomic bomb, in many areas, including in British Columbia where I was born and have lived most of life.

A potential upside to the downside described is the exercise and health benefits that occur when mountaineering.

My example

Radical liberal secularist in the western world

'The government should ban Christian parents from teaching their children the Bible, because it
brainwashes these children to believe in a God that is not empirically verifiable.'

God by nature, being infinite, non-material, spirit, the first cause, existed eternally prior to finite matter and energy (In physics, the ability to do work). God cannot be scientifically measured by material means. To insist that God must be empirically provable is a philosophical error and risks scientism.

Scientism

Scientism: A pejorative term for the concept that only the methods of natural science and related categories form the elements for any philosophical or other enquiry. Blackburn (1996: 344). From Oxford Scientism: 1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).

It may be considered pejorative when used by critics, from a secular British perspective, but there is significant accuracy to this term. A scientism approach omits and ignores as beneficial the non-empirical, scientifically speaking, premises and conclusions that work as evidences for God with historical, biblical revelation, such as Genesis 1-3 and the creation description (God as spirit, John 4: 24 for example). However, the historical characters, for example, within the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are empirically documented.

An approach using scientism also ignores philosophical support within philosophy of religion for theism that would parallel theological, biblical concepts in regard to God. Notably, first-cause.

If such supports for the idea of the biblical God were not omitted as non-beneficial, it would then clearly be philosophically quite reasonable for Christian parents to teach their children the Bible.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson (ed.), Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Additional on December 3 2022

Big Think: December 9, 2020 

The author is Adam Frank

Cited 

'What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?'

'Science is a method of inquiry about nature, while scientism is philosophy.' 

Agreed.

Cited

'And scientism is no longer up to the challenge of meeting the most pressing issues of our day.' 

It never was...

Cited

'Science and Scientism are not the same. You can deeply value the former while rejecting the latter. Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world. Scientism is just one philosophy among many about the relationship between human beings and their experiences.'

Scientism definitely has worldview and philosophy aspects to it.

Cited 

'The folly of scientism'

'Now I am a passionate scientist who is passionate about science, but I also think scientism is a huge mistake. The most important reason it is a mistake is because it is confused about what it’s defending. Without doubt, science is unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.'

Every academic discipline needs to be handled with objectivity. Scientism risks subjectively dismissing non-scientific academic disciplines.

Cited 

'There are in fact many philosophical positions — many kinds of metaphysics — that you can adopt about reality and science depending on your inclinations. The good ones illuminate critical aspects of what is happening as human beings collectively go about trying to make sense of their experiences. Scientism claims to be the only philosophy that can speak for science, but that is simply not the case. There are lots of philosophies of science out there.' 

Agreed. A philosophy of science, does not have to embrace any kind of scientism.

Big Think: Adam Frank Astrophysicist

Cited

'Adam Frank is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and a leading expert on the final stages of evolution for stars like the sun. Frank's computational research group at the University of Rochester has developed advanced supercomputer tools for studying how stars form and how they die.'

Fifty million cannot be wrong?

 

RCA: Mr. Walter Thomas Franklin, my friendly neighbour, agrees. As does his Father..

Fifty million cannot be wrong?

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

A previous entry with a connected fallacy

Ad populam May 12 2016

Logically fallacious

Cited 

'Appeal to Popularity argumentum ad numeram (also see: appeal to common belief) 

Description: Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.'

This fallacy is related

Numeram, argumentum ad

This is a truth in numbers, fallacy.

This fallacy assumes greater numbers supporting premises and conclusions make arguments true. (154).

Supposedly, greater popularity via greater numbers equals truth.

'Fifty million Frenchman can't be wrong! (154).

Pirie from England, kindly points out that often in history, the French have been in error. (154).

The rightness or wrongness of a contention is not assisted or hindered by the numbers in support. (155). Received wisdom is not to be confused with factual knowledge. (155). In other words, perceived cultural and societal wisdom and common sense is not to be confused with actual, factual, knowledge.

This fallacy can be used by the 'mob orator'. (156). A promoter could state:

'50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong'.

The popularity of Elvis at that time simply meant he was popular. As Pirie noted the rightness and wrongness of a contention, would not assist this assertion. Truth is a product of correctly reasoned out premises and conclusions to form sound arguments.

Within my Reformed, Christian, worldview, theologically, as there is universal sinful human nature and sinful choices (John 1-3, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, 1 John) this leads to ultimate human judgement for that sin.

Revelation 20:15 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 And if [a]anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Footnotes:

Revelation 20:15 Lit anyone was

Many within scholarship view this a 'figurative literal' as opposed to a 'plain literal' fire. It is likely, symbolic fire. From Mounce: This may symbolize the effects of sin and wickedness in humanity. (367). But regardless, Revelation is describing literal and true, eschatological (last things), everlasting punishment. for universal humanity that in nature and choice, embraces, in great numbers, a rejection of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I take no pleasure in this as in Christ, I too am guilty, but am saved by grace through faith for good works, not by good works (Ephesians 1-2).

A hell concept is often offensive to the non-Christian and the secular mind. For clarity, this has nothing to do with a dislike of non-Christians. It has nothing to do with bigotry. This hell theology is an attempt at an accurate, contextual report of historical, biblical, scripture. Consider from a non-Christian perspective, if the sin concept is rejected. that certainly humanity is imperfect.

God is infinite, eternal and perfectly holy, and finite imperfection is not acceptable for the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation). I reason that a deistic, theistic, non-biblical God would also be infinitely good; in contrast, evil being the finite privation of good which God willingly would allow in creation.

Humanity would not be acceptable to such a God. The human being as is, is not acceptable to the biblical God for everlasting life, and must be changed to finite perfection. (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation). This through the atonement and resurrection of Christ being applied to believers.

With either biblical Christianity or a deism/theism, fatal signs are that God, typically and universally does not directly communicate (people can pray, but God does not talk with humanity, 'face to face') with humanity and that we exist in a reality leading to death.

This reasonably kills speculative, sentimental theology.

In the western world, the biblical God is not very popular at present. More in numbers do not claim a distinct and decisive Christian faith and philosophy. The popularity of the biblical God is irrelevant, rather the biblical God is established through reasoned argumentation, or is not. Frankly, and not to be an intellectual snob, we all have our intellectual weaknesses; but the majority of the population in the western world has so little training and experience in theology and philosophy, that it is far too tempting for most to rely on popular thinking than to prayerfully research and reason these issues out.
---

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books.

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

GREER, ROWAN A. (1996) ‘Augustine’s Transformation of The Free Will Defence’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 13, Number 4, October, pp. 471-486. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

HOCKING, DAVID (2014) The Book of Revelation, Tustin, California, HFT Publications.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan. 

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms  (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.