Fair Journal - May 2012

[Vance]

He did not argue that one should reject Mormonism on his "authority" or on the basis of his "personal observation."

Really?

ANY statement or argument that claims, in any way, that "Mormons believe ________" but Biblical Christianity does not, must be claimed on "authority" or the basis of "personal observation".

Rather, he expected his listeners and readers to form judgments based on the information and arguments, not based on his personal authority or observations.

I just showed otherwise.

AND, if that is what he "expected" why did he feel the need to inflate/falsify his credentials?

The reasonable conclusion is that he inflated/falsified his credentials SPECIFICALLY to convince his listeners and readers to simply take his word for it.

Certainly Martin cannot plausibly be accused of concealing some hidden conflict of interest.

Did he reveal the amount of money he stood to make from selling his drivel?

Edited June 14, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

So, for example, suppose Walter Martin was everything his Mormon critics say he was. Does this have any bearing on whether Martin was right to argue that certain Mormon doctrines are unbiblical?

How can he claim "certain Mormon doctrines are unbiblical"?

ONLY by some claim to "authority" or "personal observation".

No, it has no bearing at all.

I just showed otherwise.

Suppose we find biblical scholars who have no connection or association at all with Martin, and who do not have the same kinds of personal faults Martin had or is alleged to have had, making just the same criticisms of those Mormon doctrines.

How can they make such claims?

By what "authority" or "personal observations"?

[why me]

I know of no financial benefit that comes from being part of FAIR.

Do you mean that the critics were lying when they more or less said that Dan Peterson is on active payroll for being an apologist?

[mfbukowski]

This bit about Martin's qualifications being irrelevant to his arguments is pretty absurd, and is totally negated by the fact that he felt it necessary to lie about his qualifications to give his arguments weight.

He himself obviously thought, contra Rob, that his lack of training was enough of an impairment to lie about it.

I don't know how there could be a more conclusive argument against Rob's position than Martin's own actions! And that is precisely why it is relevant.

Martin's himself effectively argued against Rob's position by the way he lived his life.

Edited June 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Not to mention your derail tactics.

And that is perhaps the biggest issue here- what ELSE is there in the journal that he does NOT want us to talk about??

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

I very clearly addressed that to your logic.

I very clearly responded to what you said about it.

You wrote:

You are now question begging. Martin was doing much more than arguing biblicisms.

Perhaps we need to clear up what question begging means as well. In any case, I agree that Martin's criticisms went beyond showing that Mormon doctrine was unbiblical. But just what criticisms did he make in which his personal failings were logically relevant? You haven't shown that those failings were logically relevant to any of his criticisms of Mormonism.

You wrote:

You seem to think ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy are interchangable. There is a fun fancy title for that, too.

You are mistaken. In the post to which you were replying, I very clearly drew a distinction between the two.

You wrote:

The hate speech of Walter Martin, the legitimacy of documenting a man "of God" is scamming his followers, and your conflict of interest in trying to make this irrelevant. Not to mention your derail tactics.

Martin engaged in "hate speech"? Is this by Canadian standards, American leftist standards, or what? I would ask how you think he was "scamming his followers" but the conversation is likely to degenerate even further. And I don't think you have even tried to show what specific "conflict of interest" I have in this matter.

As for derailing the thread, my posts were directly addressing material in the opening post. The opening post referenced the FAIR article on ad hominem fallacies as well as the advertisement for the book attacking Walter Martin. Pointing out that the latter is an instance of the former, in response to FAIR's direct invitation to do so, was as pertinent to the opening post as anything could be. If there is something else in the opening post that you would like me to address, let me know.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

And that is perhaps the biggest issue here- what ELSE is there in the journal that he does NOT want us to talk about??

That is just ridiculous. No one is stopping you from talking about anything in the journal you like. You already said once that you were done talking about the ad hominem subject; why don't you stick to what you said and just move on to another topic of relevance to the opening post, if you like?

[Rob Bowman]

Again, I am appealing to the moderators: please do not close this thread because of the false claims of Juliann and Mr. Bukowski that my post is an attempt to derail the thread. It most certainly is not. Please keep the thread open so someone from FAIR can respond to the issue I raised, which I raised in response to FAIR's direct invitation for critics to give examples of ad hominem attacks in its resources.

[Vance]

Please keep the thread open so someone from FAIR can respond to the issue I raised, which I raised in response to FAIR's direct invitation for critics to give examples of ad hominem attacks in its resources.

Did you provide an example of a "NASTY" ad hominem attack as the context of the invitation implies?

Edited June 14, 2012 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How about that: found one of those "nasty ad hominem attacks," with guilt by association thrown in at no extra charge.

Did Martin have a doctorate?

"Walter Martin claimed a Doctorate degree,"

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Did you provide an example of a "NASTY" ad hominem attack as the context of the invitation implies?

Earlier you pounded the same drum:

What part of...was "NASTY"?

Yeah, but would it be "NASTY"?

Is that all you've got?

I quote from the FAIR article in question:

"We at FAIR have been asking, for a long, long time, for concrete examples of where we have engaged in ad hominem fallacies, as we don’t really want to do so.... Even so, the fact that he was charged with adultery could be used as an ad hominem fallacy if (and only if) it is presented as a reason to disregard the arguments of a person. Such a usage would be wrong, and definitely a logical fallacy. It plainly should not be done in scholarly discourse.... Perhaps someone with more in-depth searching skills can point out where there are any ad hominem statements (constituting an ad hominem fallacy) in this regard. I, for one, would welcome someone pointing them out" (bold emphasis added).

The article twice asks explicitly for any specific examples of ad hominem fallacies in FAIR resources. It says nothing to the effect that ad hominem fallacies that aren't "nasty" don't qualify. Please notice, in fact, that it asks for people to point out "any" ad hominem fallacies. "Any" makes it clear that the fallacious attacks need not be particularly "nasty." The article has the word "nasty" in the title only because it quotes a statement made by a critic that used the expression "nasty ad hominem attacks." I therefore see no point in debating the meaning of the word "nasty" and whether it would apply to FAIR's advertisement. The question is irrelevant.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You asked:

Did Martin have a doctorate?

Yes. Here are the facts as I understand them: Martin had an earned Master's degree from an accredited seminary and went on to complete all of the requirements for a doctorate from New York University except the dissertation. He later agreed at the urging of a colleague to obtain his doctorate through California Western University, later called California Coast University. The school was unaccredited but did require some academic work, making it more than a degree mill but less than a reputable graduate institution. So the doctorate was definitely substandard even though arguably it was an earned degree. In my opinion, Martin made a mistake in going that route. In the end, it actually damaged his reputation.

[Wiki Wonka]

Does this mean that no one at FAIR, to include the President or other executives of FAIR, recieves a salary or any type of compensation or benefit from FAIR?

The only person with FAIR who receives any compensation is the lady who runs the bookstore (part-time). Nobody else in the organization receives any compensation whatsoever, except for the thank-you notes that we sometimes receive from people who have made inquiries. We all volunteer whatever time we can fit into our schedules.

WW

[Vance]

"We at FAIR have been asking, for a long, long time, for concrete examples of where we have engaged in ad hominem fallacies, as we don’t really want to do so.... Even so, the fact that he was charged with adultery could be used as an ad hominem fallacy if (and only if) it is presented as a reason to disregard the arguments of a person. Such a usage would be wrong, and definitely a logical fallacy. It plainly should not be done in scholarly discourse.... Perhaps someone with more in-depth searching skills can point out where there are any ad hominem statements (constituting an ad hominem fallacy) in this regard. I, for one, would welcome someone pointing them out" (bold emphasis added).

So, aside from the fact that there was nothing "NASTY" about the attack on Martin, you have been shown that the so called "ad hominem" attack was NOT fallacious at all. Martin's whole attack on Mormons is dependent upon his CREDIBILITY, which was shown to be lacking.

[Vance]

Martin had an earned Master's degree from an accredited seminary and went on to complete all of the requirements for a doctorate from New York University except the dissertation. He later agreed at the urging of a colleague to obtain his doctorate through California Western University, later called California Coast University. The school was unaccredited but did require some academic work, making it more than a degree mill but less than a reputable graduate institution. So the doctorate was definitely substandard even though arguably it was an earned degree.

I highlighted the important parts. So it is obvious that Martin didn't have a legitimate doctorate at all.

Can we still call him Dr. Dr.?

[Rob Bowman]

Wiki Wonka,

Hi there. I would be very interested in your take on my suggestion that the ad promoting the Browns' book provides an example of the ad hominem fallacy, per your journal's open invitation for people to point out such examples.

The only person with FAIR who receives any compensation is the lady who runs the bookstore (part-time). Nobody else in the organization receives any compensation whatsoever, except for the thank-you notes that we sometimes receive from people who have made inquiries. We all volunteer whatever time we can fit into our schedules.

WW

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

I highlighted the important parts.

Your highlighting shows only that in your mind the important parts are only the parts that, extracted from context, seem to support your animus against the individual in question.

In short, you are behaving like the very sort of person you claim to despise--a polemicist who takes things out of context in order to attack others.

[Vance]

Your highlighting shows only that in your mind the important parts are only the parts that, extracted from context, seem to support your animus against the individual in question.

In short, you are behaving like the very sort of person you claim to despise--a polemicist who takes things out of context in order to attack others.

Is this an example of the ad hominem fallacy?

[mfbukowski]

I highlighted the important parts. So it is obvious that Martin didn't have a legitimate doctorate at all.

Can we still call him Dr. Dr.?

The idea is enough to make you want to Scratch.

I think all those phd's come from Cassius University.

Edited June 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Wiki Wonka]

Wiki Wonka,

Hi there. I would be very interested in your take on my suggestion that the ad promoting the Browns' book provides an example of the ad hominem fallacy, per your journal's open invitation for people to point out such examples.

It depends upon the definition of "ad hominem." You would probably be more interested in discussing this with Allen Wyatt. I actually have little interest in discussing the definition of "ad hominem" (a term I only heard for the first time when I became involved in apologetics). I haven't read the section of the Browns' book dealing with Walter Martin. My understanding of "ad hominem" in this case is that in order to qualify as such, the mention of Martin's lack of a degree would be used as a technique to avoid directly responding to the claims that he makes. I cannot comment on that until I have a chance to read the Browns' book, so I don't know if they do that.

I did check the FAIR Wiki however. FAIR does respond to specific claims that Walter Martin makes in "The Kingdom of the Cults," but it appears that the response makes no mention of his degree or lack thereof. (If someone found that it did, I would remove it as being irrelevant).

With regard to Martin's credentials, I've read through this thread and I have to disagree with your apparent assertion that almost completing all of the requirements for a degree is just as good as completing the degree itself. In Boy Scouts, one can complete all of the requirements for Eagle without passing the final board of review - that doesn't give one the right to claim to be an Eagle Scout. If Martin didn't finish his doctorate, then he didn't finish. If he did finish and everyone is claiming that he didn't, then those that are claiming this are wrong. If he didn't finish and yet he claimed to have the title, then he was wrong.

I personally don't care if he had a degree or not - I am really only interested in responding to his critical claims about the LDS Church. The validity of those claims has nothing to do with Martin's degree status.

WW

[juliann]

^{Bowman's derail involves his trying to make "FAIR" responsible for everything everyone else says. That means that Bowman is also responsible for the ugly things said by anyone anywhere on his own site as well as in anything he sells or recommends. I'm not familiar with his site but I assume there are comments and books. Having great familiarity with the hate speech generated by countercultists I think Bowman has much more ad homenim to worry about than FAIR ever will.}

^{As for the discredited Martin, he was effectively swiftboated by the Browns after offering them a public dare. Swiftboating happens when someone puts something on the table meant to elevate themselves only to have it analyzed and used against them. The moral of the story is never introduce something that isn't even necessary that might produce complications. And for heaven's sake, when you are lying through your teeth as Martin was, never, ever demean an audience member and then urge them to check into your " facts".}

^{Back to Bowman's regularly scheduled derail......}

[Vance]

^{That means that Bowman is also responsible for the ugly things said by anyone anywhere on his own site as well as in anything he sells or recommends.}

As I recall, Bowman has admitted that some of the books he recommends have falsehoods/lies/misrepresentations with which he disagrees, but yet he continues to recommend them.

[Rob Bowman]

Wiki Wonka,

You wrote:

My understanding of "ad hominem" in this case is that in order to qualify as such, the mention of Martin's lack of a degree would be used as a technique to avoid directly responding to the claims that he makes.

No, that isn't a necessary element of the fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy can also be used to "poison the well" against a person's claims, and so can be used in combination with responses to those claims. All that is necessary to the fallacy is that the attacks against the person be given as reasons to reject his position -- not necessarily as the only reasons given.

You wrote:

I did check the FAIR Wiki however. FAIR does respond to specific claims that Walter Martin makes in "The Kingdom of the Cults," but it appears that the response makes no mention of his degree or lack thereof. (If someone found that it did, I would remove it as being irrelevant).

That one particular article doesn't mention Martin's credentials, but other articles on FAIR's website do make an issue out of them, and for polemical purposes.

You wrote:

With regard to Martin's credentials, I've read through this thread and I have to disagree with your apparent assertion that almost completing all of the requirements for a degree is just as good as completing the degree itself.

With all due respect, you are misconstruing what I said. I clearly asserted nothing of the kind.

[Rob Bowman]

Juliann,

You wrote:

Bowman's derail involves his trying to make "FAIR" responsible for everything everyone else says. That means that Bowman is also responsible for the ugly things said by anyone anywhere on his own site as well as in anything he sells or recommends. I'm not familiar with his site but I assume there are comments and books. Having great familiarity with the hate speech generated by countercultists I think Bowman has much more ad homenim to worry about than FAIR ever will.

First, I am not trying to make FAIR response for everything everyone else says. That would be another fallacy you're committing there, namely, the straw man fallacy. I'm only assuming that FAIR is response for what FAIR says.

Second, I have actually edited articles on our site to address legitimate complaints or criticisms, including articles that others wrote, so I do take some responsibility for what is said on our site.

Third, I am at present unaware of any "hate speech" or "ugly things said" on our site. You admit you aren't familiar with IRR's site, yet you "assume" it contains such things. Frankly, that is reckless and irresponsible.

Finally, as I have already explained to you -- with more kindness than you have shown me -- what I have posted here is not a "derail" of the thread. It is directly pertinent to material posted in the opening post.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

As I recall, Bowman has admitted that some of the books he recommends have falsehoods/lies/misrepresentations with which he disagrees, but yet he continues to recommend them.

Our site recommends resources such as books or DVDs that we think are useful or informative, which does not obligate us to agree with one hundred per cent of what they say. In the nature of the case, we cannot make minor corrections to someone else's book or DVD, whereas of course we can (and do) make minor corrections to our own articles.

On the other hand, I am not aware of our site recommending a book that is vitriolic or spiteful, or that is engaged in mere character assassination, or that contains clear examples of deliberate lies. If there is such a recommendation on our site, feel free to point it out. But remember, inaccuracies and other mistakes are not necessarily lies.