The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientology.
Bulverism is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia further explains:
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Bulverism is a name for a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with circular reasoning. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker is so mistaken, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term "Bulverism" was coined by C. S. Lewis[1] to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew's "Subject/Motive Shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth. But it is also a fallacy of circular reasoning, since it assumes, rather than argues, that one's opponent is wrong.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Similarly, the Rational Wiki explains:
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Bulverism the logical fallacy of assuming without discussion that a person is wrong and then distracting his or her attention from this (the only real issue) by explaining how that person became so silly, usually associating it to a psychological condition. The fallacy deals with secondary questions about ideas rather than the primary one, thus avoiding the basic question or evading the issues raised by trains of reasoning. It is essentially dodging your opponent's argument by treating them like a psychological patient who needs your evaluation to explain why they came up with such a ridiculous argument in the first place.The fallacy was coined by C.S. Lewis in his essay, "First and Second things".
[edit]Strict usage
The form of the Bulverism fallacy can be expressed as follows:You claim that A is true.Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.Therefore, A is false.orYou claim that A is false.Because of B, you personally desire that A should be false.Therefore, A is true.[h=[edit]Examples]2[/h]
[edit]See also
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Logical Gal explains the derivation of the name as follows:
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Have you ever heard of Ezekiel Bulver? He’s an imaginary 5-year old, immortalized by CS Lewis in brief hypothetical transformative moment of this young man’s life.” ….. Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father – who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third – “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.” (essay read to the Socratic Club at Oxford in 1941)What CS Lewis describes in story form is none other than the Genetic Fallacy. Remember that fallacies are often used IN PLACE OF reason, either to make a case OR to attack an opponent’s claim.This kind of low blow attempts to discredit the speaker by talking about his or her origins.To wit:
Do you see how these retorts are likely to distract the recipient from the merits of the argument in question? Tactical parries of this sort often lead someone on a fruitless bunny trail away from the meat of the discussion itself.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
The Independent Scientology Milestone Two essay at issue is:
Vengeful attacks
http://ift.tt/1qQ8niL
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Vengeful attacks
Posted by Lana M.
May 28, 2016
by Bruce C
For anyone who has experienced personal gains from L. Ron Hubbard’s works and writings and is unwilling to be denied their value it can be abrading, or at least questioning, to read popular smears against the founder of Scientology. The latest I have seen was written by Hana Eltringham, a well-known and once-respected name in the Sea Org in which she accuses Ron of “being always right.”
There has also been a recent post to Mike Rinder’s blog from a person who reported to be a current online Scientologist and well trained Data Series Analyst (none of which is proved) who began an exposé with a brilliant situation analysis and in her findings proceeded to squat deliver diarrhea all over Hubbard’s face based on her personal opinions.
Note: I have not provided links here. If you are that interested in reading this tripe then feel free to search for it online. It’s there.
The first thing I consider about these is ARC-X revenge of some sort. Certainly, there is can be the MWH phenomena at work. There is also a huge gray-zone between PTS and SP, for better or worse an area never better delineated than in SOS. And yes, I am using Scientology acronyms, mainly because if you don’t know them, then you are not informed enough to make worthy comment about any of this.
Volumes can and should be written about Ron’s tech and how it has/could/can reach the world into which it was delivered. But its evaluation should always be viewed given the disparity (gap) between our present society and truth. It is one thing to bring about a truth that will set man free, but bring it against man’s long dedication to being man.
Let’s keep it simple here. To me, the basic tech of the ARC Triangle, that alone, is miles above any tech ever seen on or considered on this planet, inclusive of Buddhism, Christianity, or any “ism” which has attempted to move mankind forward in a better direction; though each of them included the ARC principle somewhere and somehow in its tenets.
Yet, these writers attack. Hana for instance denies all case gain from OTIII. What she did not write about is her success stories and attestation from her auditing. The best (if not only) explanation here is that she lied.
And now we are to be believed by Hana. Right?
There is, unfortunately, a lesson to be carried on here. PC’s did evidently promote their ser-fac personages over actual case gain. That is a sad revelation but undeniably true. Also true is Ron’s statement in CS-Series 20 that he had originally underestimated the insanity of mankind.
When I consider the accomplishments that Ron envisioned for his technology, I consider them to be of a better perspective and confront of evil than I could have ever, or even now presume. Going into the unknown is sometimes, even with the best of study, unknown.
For what it’s worth, no, I do not always abide with Ron’s policies. I like to think he would respect me for that. For one, I was there in the Toronto’s so-called boom days, and even as an auditor in the HGC, I had to seek outside income (Canadian Socialism) in order to pay my rent and assuage my hunger. There is no way I can justify that lapse in HCO-PL’s even tho there was written about auditor pay bonuses.
Ron has written (sorry, paraphrased) that the first thing they do is attack him rather than his technology. How true, it’s easier after all, right? But when ex-Scientologists, even when long-term and well-known names within the past Scientology community, start attacking Ron rather than his technology, know well that they are taking an ARC breaky, vengeful, and easy line of attack.
I wish they had gotten the full case gain that they had claimed in their Success Stories. But their loss is theirs, not Ron’s. Most of us had real successes.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
In this essay Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two demonstrate not only their sadly impaired and defective reasoning ability, but also provide an example of Bulverism that would make C.S. Lewis proud. They assume, without evidence, analysis or rational thought that Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog are wrong, then explain why they are so wrong -- e.g., "ARC-X revenge," "MWH phenomena" (i.e., missed withhold phenenomena), that they fall in the "huge gray-zone between PTS and SP," or they "promote[d] their ser-fac personages over actual case gain."
Nowhere do Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two address on the merits the emperical observations and arguments by Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog. Indeed, they are such non-confront cowards that they won't even link to them. Instead, Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two assume they are right, and deign to explain why Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog.
In my experience, this defective and logically fallacious form of argument is common not only within Independent Scientology, but also also within the broader world of Scientology, whether represented by the corporate Church of Scientology, Indies, or the Freezone. They all, in my experience, assume without evidence, thought or analysis that any criticism or negative empirical observations are wrong, and then mistakenly think it is a valid form of argument to only provide the psychological or "case" reasons why you have such mistaken beliefs.
The Bulverism of Independent Scientology Milestone Two, and indeed all Scientology
Bulverism is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia further explains:
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Bulverism is a name for a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with circular reasoning. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error". The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker is so mistaken, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term "Bulverism" was coined by C. S. Lewis[1] to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew's "Subject/Motive Shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth. But it is also a fallacy of circular reasoning, since it assumes, rather than argues, that one's opponent is wrong.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Similarly, the Rational Wiki explains:
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Bulverism the logical fallacy of assuming without discussion that a person is wrong and then distracting his or her attention from this (the only real issue) by explaining how that person became so silly, usually associating it to a psychological condition. The fallacy deals with secondary questions about ideas rather than the primary one, thus avoiding the basic question or evading the issues raised by trains of reasoning. It is essentially dodging your opponent's argument by treating them like a psychological patient who needs your evaluation to explain why they came up with such a ridiculous argument in the first place.The fallacy was coined by C.S. Lewis in his essay, "First and Second things".
|
Contents [hide]
|
The form of the Bulverism fallacy can be expressed as follows:You claim that A is true.Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.Therefore, A is false.orYou claim that A is false.Because of B, you personally desire that A should be false.Therefore, A is true.[h=[edit]Examples]2[/h]
- Used by pseudo-skeptics: "Religion is just a silly idea made up by people to cope with the discomfort of living in a purposeless, Godless universe."
- Used by those of a religious bent: "Atheists only deny the existence of God because they're angry at him[1]."
- Used by those on the fringes of the political spectrum: "Liberals only support a Nanny State because they're crazy and neurotic," or "Conservatives only support capitalism because they're psychopaths and hate the poor."
[edit]See also
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Logical Gal explains the derivation of the name as follows:
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Have you ever heard of Ezekiel Bulver? He’s an imaginary 5-year old, immortalized by CS Lewis in brief hypothetical transformative moment of this young man’s life.” ….. Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father – who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third – “Oh, you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.” (essay read to the Socratic Club at Oxford in 1941)What CS Lewis describes in story form is none other than the Genetic Fallacy. Remember that fallacies are often used IN PLACE OF reason, either to make a case OR to attack an opponent’s claim.This kind of low blow attempts to discredit the speaker by talking about his or her origins.To wit:
- What do you expect from someone over 40?
- You’re only saying that because you’re a conservative!
- Of course they would argue that way, look at what they have to gain!
Do you see how these retorts are likely to distract the recipient from the merits of the argument in question? Tactical parries of this sort often lead someone on a fruitless bunny trail away from the meat of the discussion itself.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
The Independent Scientology Milestone Two essay at issue is:
Vengeful attacks
http://ift.tt/1qQ8niL
* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *
Vengeful attacks
Posted by Lana M.
May 28, 2016
by Bruce C
For anyone who has experienced personal gains from L. Ron Hubbard’s works and writings and is unwilling to be denied their value it can be abrading, or at least questioning, to read popular smears against the founder of Scientology. The latest I have seen was written by Hana Eltringham, a well-known and once-respected name in the Sea Org in which she accuses Ron of “being always right.”
There has also been a recent post to Mike Rinder’s blog from a person who reported to be a current online Scientologist and well trained Data Series Analyst (none of which is proved) who began an exposé with a brilliant situation analysis and in her findings proceeded to squat deliver diarrhea all over Hubbard’s face based on her personal opinions.
Note: I have not provided links here. If you are that interested in reading this tripe then feel free to search for it online. It’s there.
The first thing I consider about these is ARC-X revenge of some sort. Certainly, there is can be the MWH phenomena at work. There is also a huge gray-zone between PTS and SP, for better or worse an area never better delineated than in SOS. And yes, I am using Scientology acronyms, mainly because if you don’t know them, then you are not informed enough to make worthy comment about any of this.
Volumes can and should be written about Ron’s tech and how it has/could/can reach the world into which it was delivered. But its evaluation should always be viewed given the disparity (gap) between our present society and truth. It is one thing to bring about a truth that will set man free, but bring it against man’s long dedication to being man.
Let’s keep it simple here. To me, the basic tech of the ARC Triangle, that alone, is miles above any tech ever seen on or considered on this planet, inclusive of Buddhism, Christianity, or any “ism” which has attempted to move mankind forward in a better direction; though each of them included the ARC principle somewhere and somehow in its tenets.
Yet, these writers attack. Hana for instance denies all case gain from OTIII. What she did not write about is her success stories and attestation from her auditing. The best (if not only) explanation here is that she lied.
And now we are to be believed by Hana. Right?
There is, unfortunately, a lesson to be carried on here. PC’s did evidently promote their ser-fac personages over actual case gain. That is a sad revelation but undeniably true. Also true is Ron’s statement in CS-Series 20 that he had originally underestimated the insanity of mankind.
When I consider the accomplishments that Ron envisioned for his technology, I consider them to be of a better perspective and confront of evil than I could have ever, or even now presume. Going into the unknown is sometimes, even with the best of study, unknown.
For what it’s worth, no, I do not always abide with Ron’s policies. I like to think he would respect me for that. For one, I was there in the Toronto’s so-called boom days, and even as an auditor in the HGC, I had to seek outside income (Canadian Socialism) in order to pay my rent and assuage my hunger. There is no way I can justify that lapse in HCO-PL’s even tho there was written about auditor pay bonuses.
Ron has written (sorry, paraphrased) that the first thing they do is attack him rather than his technology. How true, it’s easier after all, right? But when ex-Scientologists, even when long-term and well-known names within the past Scientology community, start attacking Ron rather than his technology, know well that they are taking an ARC breaky, vengeful, and easy line of attack.
I wish they had gotten the full case gain that they had claimed in their Success Stories. But their loss is theirs, not Ron’s. Most of us had real successes.
* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
In this essay Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two demonstrate not only their sadly impaired and defective reasoning ability, but also provide an example of Bulverism that would make C.S. Lewis proud. They assume, without evidence, analysis or rational thought that Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog are wrong, then explain why they are so wrong -- e.g., "ARC-X revenge," "MWH phenomena" (i.e., missed withhold phenenomena), that they fall in the "huge gray-zone between PTS and SP," or they "promote[d] their ser-fac personages over actual case gain."
Nowhere do Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two address on the merits the emperical observations and arguments by Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog. Indeed, they are such non-confront cowards that they won't even link to them. Instead, Bruce C as writer, Lana Mitchell as editor, and Independent Scientology Milestone Two assume they are right, and deign to explain why Hana Eltringham and the recent critic on Mike Rinder's blog.
In my experience, this defective and logically fallacious form of argument is common not only within Independent Scientology, but also also within the broader world of Scientology, whether represented by the corporate Church of Scientology, Indies, or the Freezone. They all, in my experience, assume without evidence, thought or analysis that any criticism or negative empirical observations are wrong, and then mistakenly think it is a valid form of argument to only provide the psychological or "case" reasons why you have such mistaken beliefs.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire