By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, Someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty Conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group Think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this is an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful Thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Looking inside the spiritual & literary worlds
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2016
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Wanted and Needed...Common Sense Thinking
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
WANTED AND NEEDED....COMMON SENSE THINKING
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
Last week we talked about the importance of critical thinking/logic, which is simply common sense stated differently.
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Last week we talked about the importance of critical thinking/logic, which is simply common sense stated differently.
Arguments consist of two parts--premise/s (which are reasons given), and the conclusion itself. Premises/reasons are given to make the conclusion plausible. The art of critical thinking is to analyze carefully the premises we deem persuasive for the conclusion we hold..often fiercely.
Hey, we all make mistakes in reasoning, but surely we would desire to minimize their occurrence. However, what I like about logic is that it reveals when we are so wed to some position, that we close our ears and eyes to any evidence that may challenge our beloved belief. Surely that is a good thing!
With minimal comment, I want to list the top-few most frequent errors in logic (common sense) that WE commit re:a whole host of subjects, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation and the paranormal. Soon, I will list fundamental rules of hermeneutics, which closely align with logic, and show even more clearly how to understand what the bible says re:the afterlife.
What I list, someone else may add thus and so. Thus is the nature of inductive logic.....
1. Though not a fallacy, when we are arguing our case, we must clarify our terms...define them carefully.
2. Ad Hominem Argument--Disputing a position or argument by attacking or criticizing its source.Talk radio hosts commit this frequently.
3. Straw Man--disputing a position by exaggerating it, misrepresenting it, or otherwise distorting it. Putting the worst possible spin on an opponents's ideas. For example, when my view is called "fundamentalist". that implies stupidity and lack of intelligence.
4. Hasty conclusion--also known as over-generalizing. A powerful anecdotal experience has misled many otherwise solid Christians.I have yet to meet anyone (exorcists, etc.) who has had an experience similar to what I had (I have to leave details ambiguous). The point being is that nobody has had a more powerful display of supernatural power, and the source IS DEMONIC. Don't drone on about what your read...I have seen and felt it..and it is demonic.Using bad analogies is another way of committing this fallacy.
5. Group think--when loyalty to a group values affects one's own judgment in ways that range from the amusing to the dangerous. I have written re: "Plausibility Structures" in which we seek safety in groups which make it easy for us to believe in commonly held, but not rationally defensed, beliefs.
6. Red Herring--this ia an attention span fallacy. Amused to death, as Postman said, we are now unable to follow a sustained logical argument, since we are addicted to constant stream of vivid images..This attention span fallacy works best on those who are unable to stay focused long enough to notice that the question answered was not the question asked. My son Jack is very good at spotting this.
7. Wishful thinking--this is basically a refusal to believe the truth.....known as "Ostrich fallacy." In prelude to my book, I pled with folks to avoid this fallacy. If conclusion is not in line with what they believe, then many will not even read differing opinion, no matter how serious the issue.
8. Argument from Popularity--if "everybody in their group believes it, it must be true." My parents taught me to not follow the crowd. Just because an issue (e.g. residual energy) is universally accepted by paranormal community, does not prove it is right.
How does each one of these fallacies effect what you believe? Are you persuadable? "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." No tonnage of anecdotal evidence--especially given Satan's deception--can compare with the clarity of God's Word.
Think clearly for God's glory.....Mark
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
The Burden of Proof Lies on Those Affirming the Existence of Ghosts
By Reverend Mark Hunnemann
I bought a book recently entitled, "Critical Thinking" which is a popular text in colleges on logic--how to think carefully and reasonably. At 5 am, while in the gym on the bike, it was a curious coincidence that I opened the book randomly to a discussion re: 'burden of proof' in an argument. What blew me away was the example given...it woke me up!! It was a section entitled "Misplacing the Burden of Proof" Below is a verbatim quote and it mentions ghosts.
Before I proceed, I want to say that 'Critical thinking" has been a love of mine for 40 years, and have done graduate work in logic at UNC-CH. I also started Caldwell Academy in GSO and designed their logic curriculum...as well as "Greensboro Academys".
Affirmative/negative. Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side. In other words, we generally want to hear reasons why something IS the case before before we require reasons why it is NOT the case....This rule applies to existence versus non-existence, too. Most often, the burden of proof should fall on those who claim something exists rather than on those who claim it doesn't. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GHOSTS, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE GHOSTS. BUT BECAUSE NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS (when someone claims that we should believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn't so, we have a subtype of burden of proof known as an APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.) This is a burden-of-proof fallacy because it mistakenly places the requirement of proving their position on those who do do not believe in ghosts. (Critical Thinking. 8th ed. 2007, Moore, Parker..pg 187....emphasis added)
This is NOT a Christian text by any means. However, I almost fell out of my stationary bike when I read this at 5 am! The first time I opened the book, the above is what I had turned to. Logic/critical thinking rules are subordinate to Scripture, but since Jesus is the Logos/Logic, then we must realize that Jesus wove logic into the fabric of reality. Aristotle did not create logic, he simply 'discovered' and categorized what the Logos had intertwined into the warp and woof of reality.
According to secular accepted rules of logic (in line with bible) any claims for existence of ghosts MUST assume burden of proof. That has profound implications for--A calling non-believers in ghosts "fundamentalist"in derogatory way. B more importantly, ANY claims of apparitional humans have burden of proof. There is an arrogance toward the "all paranormal is demonic", but in reality they are bumping against reality and logic.The bible clearly affirms the existence of two types of angels--good and bad. There is an unending enumeration of alleged spirit entities by those not guided by the bible. Now they must see that logic itself opposes them.
If you believe in ghosts in ANY form (other than biblical examples), the burden of proof lies squarely upon your shoulders.
In conclusion, if one responds by saying that there is an abundance of evidence for the existence of ghosts via EVP, sightings, etc, then that is another fallacy--circular reasoning. One has to assume the existence of ghosts, to interpret those experiences as being evidence of ghosts. Christians have to bow before the authority of God's Word, which makes clear that Satan is the great deceiver.
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
I bought a book recently entitled, "Critical Thinking" which is a popular text in colleges on logic--how to think carefully and reasonably. At 5 am, while in the gym on the bike, it was a curious coincidence that I opened the book randomly to a discussion re: 'burden of proof' in an argument. What blew me away was the example given...it woke me up!! It was a section entitled "Misplacing the Burden of Proof" Below is a verbatim quote and it mentions ghosts.
Before I proceed, I want to say that 'Critical thinking" has been a love of mine for 40 years, and have done graduate work in logic at UNC-CH. I also started Caldwell Academy in GSO and designed their logic curriculum...as well as "Greensboro Academys".
Affirmative/negative. Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side. In other words, we generally want to hear reasons why something IS the case before before we require reasons why it is NOT the case....This rule applies to existence versus non-existence, too. Most often, the burden of proof should fall on those who claim something exists rather than on those who claim it doesn't. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GHOSTS, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE GHOSTS. BUT BECAUSE NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS (when someone claims that we should believe in such-and-such because nobody has proved that it isn't so, we have a subtype of burden of proof known as an APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.) This is a burden-of-proof fallacy because it mistakenly places the requirement of proving their position on those who do do not believe in ghosts. (Critical Thinking. 8th ed. 2007, Moore, Parker..pg 187....emphasis added)
This is NOT a Christian text by any means. However, I almost fell out of my stationary bike when I read this at 5 am! The first time I opened the book, the above is what I had turned to. Logic/critical thinking rules are subordinate to Scripture, but since Jesus is the Logos/Logic, then we must realize that Jesus wove logic into the fabric of reality. Aristotle did not create logic, he simply 'discovered' and categorized what the Logos had intertwined into the warp and woof of reality.
According to secular accepted rules of logic (in line with bible) any claims for existence of ghosts MUST assume burden of proof. That has profound implications for--A calling non-believers in ghosts "fundamentalist"in derogatory way. B more importantly, ANY claims of apparitional humans have burden of proof. There is an arrogance toward the "all paranormal is demonic", but in reality they are bumping against reality and logic.The bible clearly affirms the existence of two types of angels--good and bad. There is an unending enumeration of alleged spirit entities by those not guided by the bible. Now they must see that logic itself opposes them.
If you believe in ghosts in ANY form (other than biblical examples), the burden of proof lies squarely upon your shoulders.
In conclusion, if one responds by saying that there is an abundance of evidence for the existence of ghosts via EVP, sightings, etc, then that is another fallacy--circular reasoning. One has to assume the existence of ghosts, to interpret those experiences as being evidence of ghosts. Christians have to bow before the authority of God's Word, which makes clear that Satan is the great deceiver.
Mark Hunnemann is the author of Seeing Ghosts Through God's Eyes: A Worldview Analysis of Earthbound Spirits. It's also available in eBook format.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)