Guilt by Association

Gult by association is an attempt to discredit an argument or idea by associating it with something the audience would not approve of.

This is a fallacy of inductive reasoning, which means it argues from particular examples to the universal. This is the opposite of syllogistic arguments, which are deductive,, moving from universals to particulars: for example, All men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal. A typical inductive argument might look something like this:

Premise. I have seen hundreds of swans, and they were all white.
Conclusion. Therefore, all swans are white.

In a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises: if they are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion must be true. Obviously, this isn't the case with an inductive argument: it's possible for the conclusion to be false even if the premises are true. (All it takes is to find a black swan: they do exist.) Inductive reasoning relies on probability: the stronger the premises, the greater the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

More specifically, guilt by association is a form of hasty generalization, in which the sample size isn't large enough to support the conclusion. Just because a certain position or thing and something unpleasant share one characteristic, doesn't mean they share enough characteristics to be actually connected.

Guilt by association is very similar to the formal fallacy of the undistributed middle term.

Examples

This is one of those fallacies that's simple enough to concoct, simply by invoking Nazis:

Why would I want to be a vegetarian? Hitler was a vegetarian, you know.

The wrongheadedness of this argument is easily exposed simply by pointing out many of the other innocent things Hitler did: breathe, love his mother, drive in cars, and so forth. You wouldn't want to be like Hitler, would you?

Terry Watkins of the KJV-onlyist Web site Dial-the-Truth Ministries commits this error on a page titled "The New King James Version: Counterfeit":

NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's [sic] no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.

The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager's [sic] refer to him as the "the Coming One" - AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are You THE COMING ONE. . ." In the [sic] "The Great Invocation", a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One."

And to REALLY show their sympathy with the satanic New Age Movement - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - in Acts 17:29 the New Age NKJV changes "Godhead" to "Divine Nature"! (ditto NIV, NASV [sic]) (all emphases in original)

Watkins apparently expects us to believe NKJV is a "New Age" Bible simply because of a superficial similarity in wording: New Age sources also use a few of the same, fairly common, words. If I rewrite Watkins' argument syllogistically, the undistributed middle becomes obvious:

Premise 1. The NKJV uses the term "the Coming One" [or "age" or "Divine Nature"].
Premise 2. New Agers use the term "the Coming One."
Conclusion. Therefore, the NKJV is New Age.

True or not, the conclusion simply doesn't follow.

Watkins apparently is unable or unwilling to entertain alternatives as to why the NKJV reads as it does: for example, that "age" is a proper translation of the Greek term aion, which refers to an age of time, and from which we get our English word eon (and arguably a better rendition than the KJV's "world"); "the coming one" is a proper (and literal) translation of erchomai (and is it really any less accurate than the KJV's "he that should come"?), and "Divine Nature" is a valid rendering of theios. Indeed, the last is in fact synonymous with "Godhead": the suffix -head is an archaic form of -hood, which denotes state or quality. In other words, "Godhead" means "the state of being God" - in other words, divine nature. It's also fair to point out that 2 Pet. 1:4, uses those very words. Is it also a New Age Bible?

My first experience with Dial-the-Truth and Watkins was their page titled "Christian Rock: Blessing or Blasphemy?" in which (amongst other things) Watkins criticized DC Talk - primarily by avoiding discussing DC Talk, and talking primarily about Nine Inch Nails. Why? Because the director of NIN's "Closer" video, Simon Maxwell, also directed DC Talk's video for "Jesus Freak." I'm inclined to think that if guilt by association didn't exist, Watkins would have nothing to say.

Remedy

As with the fallacy of the undistributed middle term, the proper rebuttal to guilt by association is to point out that surface similarities do not a connection make. Point out any relevant dissimilarities that weaken the case. And, if possible, expose the argument's absurdity.

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term

The fallacy of the undistributed middle term is a syllogistic fallacy in which the middle term is not distributed in either premise. In a valid syllogism, the middle term must be distributed at least once. (See my previous post for an explanation of distribution and other syllogistic logic terminology.)

In simpler terms, a syllogism with an undistributed middle term is one that attempts to equate two different subjects with a common predicate. This formal fallacy is similar to the informal fallacy of guilt by association, which also attempts to connect two things with a shared characteristic.

Examples

If the right terms are chosen, this kind of argument can be persuasive, even though it is poor. Consider this example:

Communists believe in socialized medicine.
Senator Jones believes in socialized medicine.
Therefore, Senator Jones is a Communist.

While it may very well be true that Senator Jones is a Communist, it would be in spite of this argument, not because of it. The middle term ("socialized medicine") is undistributed in both premises. At least one distributed middle term is necessary to link Senator Jones to the Communists. Otherwise, they may be two completely separate parties, who happen to believe the same thing concerning public health care.

By substituting more absurd terms, it's easy to see why this fallacy is poor reasoning:

All dogs are four-legged.
All tables are four-legged.
Therefore, all dogs are tables.

Several years ago, a KJV-onlyist calling himself "1611king" started thread at the Bible Versions Discussion Board about Virginia Mollenkott's involvement with the NIV. Several posters answered with a tu quoques (as I discussed in an earlier post) - the rationale being that if the presence of an immoral person on the NIV translation committee caused 1611king so much discomfort, he ought to feel the same about immoral persons translating the KJV as well. Instead, he dismissed the history as "tainted and spurious." But when it was stated that the history books cited came with documentation of their facts, 1611king replied:

Have you ever heard of the Satanic Bible? It's a REAL book with REAL references. Does this make it credible? No, and neither is your history credible.

[Source]

Syllogistically, this "rebuttal" goes something like this:

Premise 1. Some non-credible books are documented.
Premise 2. These secular history books are documented.
Conclusion. Therefore, these secular history books are non-credible books.

Since both premises are particular affirmatives, the middle term, documented, is undistributed in both. Therefore, the syllogism is invalid. It may still be that the history books are in error, but if so, it is in spite of 1611king's faulty logic, not because of it. His argument doesn't wash.

Remedy

Inform your opponent that he is committing guilt by association. Just because two things share a common characteristic, it doesn't necessarily mean they're connected.

A Brief Intro to Syllogistic Logic

Syllogistic or Aristotelian logic takes a middle ground between informal logic (which concerns itself with distinguishing good and bad arguments in everyday discourse) and formal logic (which concerns itself with the form of arguments, and its validity).

Disclaimer: This page is intended only to provide a little background to syllogistic logic as an aid to understanding any formal fallacies on this site. Consider it a work in progress: by no means should it be considered a comprehensive source of information about intentional logic. I welcome suggestions or corrections from experienced logicians.

Propositions

According to Aristotle, a proposition is a sentence that affirms or denies a predicate of a subject. In other words, a proposition makes a truth claim about something or someone. The subject and predicate of a proposition are also known as terms.

There are only four kinds of propositions:

• the universal affirmative (or A proposition): All S is P.
• the particular affirmative (I proposition): Some S are P.
• the universal negative (E proposition): No S is P.
• the particular negative (O proposition): Some S are not P.

The nicknames A, I, E, and O come from the vowels in the Latin words affirmo ("I affirm") and nego ("I deny").

Distribution

A term is said to be distributed if the proposition gives information about every member of its class.

• In an A proposition, the subject is distributed.
• In an I proposition, neither subject nor predicate is distributed.
• In an E proposition, both subject and predicate are distributed.
• In an O proposition, the predicate is distributed.

Syllogisms

A syllogism is a deductive argument comprising three propositions. The first two are are premises. In a valid syllogism, if the two premises are true, then the third proposition, the conclusion, must also be true.

The classic syllogism is as follows:

Premise 1. All men are mortal.
Premise 2. Socrates is a man.
Conclusion. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Every valid syllogism contains no more or less than three terms:

• The minor term (in blue) is the subject of the conclusion, and common to the conclusion and the minor premise.
• The major term (in red) is the predicate of the conclusion, and common to the conclusion and the major premise.
• The middle term (in green) is common to the two premises, and does not appear in the conclusion.

For a syllogism to be valid, the following must be true:

• There must be no more than three terms.
• The middle term must be distributed at least once.
• Any term distributed in the premises must be distributed in the conclusion.
• A particular premise cannot support a universal conclusion.
• A negative premise cannot support an affirmative conclusion.
• Two negative premises do not support any conclusion.

If a syllogism follows these rules, then it is valid: the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Of course, it is possible to draw a false conclusion from a valid syllogism, if one or both premises are false:

All elephants are Communists.
Stephen Harper is an elephant.
Therefore, Stephen Harper is a Communist.

If a syllogism is valid and its premises are true, then it is sound.

Ad Hominem (Tu Quoques)

Ad hominem arguments are those that are directed against the person, rather than his points. We've already seen the most blatant form of ad hominem, abuse. Nearly as blatant is the tu quoques form. Tu quoques is Latin for "you're another." This fallacy dismisses another person's argument on the grounds that since he does the very thing he is arguing against.

Examples

Suppose a gym teacher were to teach an entire "health" class on the dangers of smoking, only to have a student ask, "Why should I believe you? We all know you smoke." Regardless of whether the information being taught is true or useful, the subject has been changed to the teacher himself.

On the Bible Versions Discussion Board, poster "DocCas" once posted the following:

I don't think it is at all inappropriate for Brent to post his questions which are of the same style and type that have been posted by the proponents of the modern versions. I too think many of Brent's questions/characterizations are straw men, but isn't that the whole point? The modern version proponents ask for chapter and verse proving the KJV is the only word of God, or the word of God at all, and Brent asks the same questions of the modern version proponents. Both are straw men.

[Source]

The original discussion was about finding theological justification for KJV-onlyism in the Scriptures. Note how DocCas has changed the subject away from whether the KJV-only postiion has any support, to whether it is equally appropriate for KJV-onlyist and non-KJV-onlyist alike to post "straw man" questions.

Not every single use of a tu quoques argument constitutes a fallacy. It's appropriate to point out your opponent's double standards. However, it is fallacious to respond to an argument with nothing more than, "Well, you're not better."

Case in point: Many KJV-onlyists make a big deal about the involvement of Virginia Mollenkott on the NIV translation committee. Mollenkott is a feminist theologian and an open lesbian. Thus, according to the KJV-onlyists, her involvement with the NIV taints that translation and gives it a pro-homosexual bias.

A sound rebuttal to this claim is to state the facts as presented in the statement released by Kenneth Barker of the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation. In short, he states:

• Mollenkott's role was as a stylistic consultant, not a translator.
• Her sexuality and theology were not generally known at the time.
• When they became known, she was removed from the work.
• A survey of the relevant verses shows that the NIV is not "soft" on homosexuality as is claimed.

But having taken the valid response out of the way, I think the inconsistency in the KJV-only position can be exposed via a well-laced tu quoques. The very man who commissioned the KJV to be translated (and after whom it is nicknamed), James I of England, is generally believed to have been at least bisexual.¹ If the KJV-onlyists condemn Virginia Mollenkott for what they ignore or excuse in James I, then they are guilty of a double standard.

And that, in general, has been the response of the KJV-onlyists. Faced with the evidence of James I's homosexuality, they will deny it by re-interpreting the evidence, or excuse it by reminding the non-KJV-onlyists that James had nothing to do with the translation itself. In fact, ironically, the KJV-onlyists' position on James I begins to look an awful lot like the NIV translators' position on Virginia Mollenkott. In seeking to avoid the double standard, they only affirm it all the more.

Remedy

If the charges made against you by your opponent are true, then for the purpose of the debate I see no harm done by acknowledging it. You might even win some rhetorical brownie points for conceding that you are, in fact, inconsistent on that point. Nonetheless, the subject at hand is not your inconsistency. Remind your opponent that even if you were the most inconsistent hypocrite ever to walk the planet, that does not change the truth or falsity of your arguments, and he must still deal with their substance.

Footnote

See, for example, Otto J. Scott, James I (New York: Mason, 1976), and David Moore Bergeron, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire (Iowa City: Iowa UP, 1999).

Ad Hominem (Abuse)

Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man." An ad hominem argument is one that is directed against the person, rather than his arguments.

This fallacy takes many forms, as we'll see. However, the abuse variant is easily the most blatant of its kind. Inventing examples of abuse is all too easy. This should be pretty self-explanatory:

If you believe in God, you're an idiot.

Examples

Years ago I was fairly active in various Christian forums on Yahoo! Groups. In its heyday, groups devoted to the KJV were plentiful. Today, with the ubiquity of forum software, Yahoo! Groups has declined, and while there are still a fair number of "King James Bible" groups there, they appear to either be dormant, overrun with spam, or restricted to members only - mainly, I suspect, to keep people like me out. Nonetheless, I've managed to keep a few good samples of ad hominem (abuse) from those days - not that it's difficult to find contemprary examples, mind you.

In the very early 2000s, I had had some dealings with a KJV-onlyist named Scott Cowie. I think he is probably the earliest example of a "9/11 Truther" that I encountered, because I had been posting responses to his conspiracy theories concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center a mere two weeks after Sept. 11, 2001. As a rebuttal of sorts, Cowie managed to tie in his Trutherism with his KJV-onlyism and respond to me:

As for my posting "conspiracy theories" it is obvious Mr. McClare you are a gullible fool who will believe anything BUT the truth. You are just goosestepping to the NWO tune of our fearless leaders.

Note that Cowie has sidestepped the issue of his "conspiracy theories," which I had previously addressed directly, and come after me personally, accusing me of being a "gullible fool" and a New World Order lackey. Abuse of this kind is, in fact, a very common form of "argument" used by conspiracy theorists when confronted with skepticism: disagreeing with their theories is proof that you're on the payroll of someone even more insidious.

A couple months later on another Yahoo! group, a KJV-onlyist named Chuck Hilton (going by the handle "kjbhilton") posted the following after another poster answered a common claim by KJV-onlyists, that modern version users don't believe the KJV is the Word of God:

Well then if you do beleive [sic] that the KJV is God's word, you can't possibly beleive [sic] the other versions are Gods [sic] word, unless you have the IQ of a sled track!

I don't know what the IQ of a sled track is, but Hilton is ignoring the issue at hand (correcting his error) in favour of insulting someone's intelligence.

I suspect I'm not alone in this, but this is the fallacy that the KJV-onlyists have tried on me more than any other. Rather than attempt to deal with any substantial issues I have raised, the first thing the KJV-only zealots want to do is rush off to Google and dig up a whole bunch of dirt. (Since I've had a presence on the Web since 1996, there's no shortage of personal information about me out there!) They will discover that I am a fan of 70s progressive rock such as Pink Floyd, and rather than debate KJV-onlyism, will declare me "worldly." They learn that some bands I enjoy contain members who are homosexuals, and rather than debate KJV-onlyism, will call me a "limp-wristed supporter of queers." They find out I enjoy beer and wine, and rather than debate KJV-onlyism, will denounce me as a drunkard.

Over the years I have had KJV-onlyists call me, amongst other things, "liberal," "apostate," a "heretic" (or, just as commonly, a "heretick" as many of these folks seem to like to affect the archaic spellings of the KJV). These are accusations of theological error, and yet when pressed for the specific errors I am guilty of, my accusers are strangely silent. I have been accused of both "Romanism" and "Calvinism" in the same thread, the contradictory nature of these two accusations apparently going completely unnoticed. (I am a Calvinist, and don't know why being accused of it should bother me.) And because I won't accept the must absurd unreason preented as Christian fundamentalism, I've been called stupid, idiotic, and (as we see above) a "gullible fool."

The key to understanding this raving is simply to remember this rule of thumb: To a KJV-onlyist, these labels don't actually mean anything. A KJV-onlyist calling me a "liberal" is not accusing me of liberalism. "Scott is a liberal" has no more content to it than "Scott is a poop head."

It's too bad. You'd think that attacking a person rather than his opinions would be the last resort, but for the "defenders" of the King James Bible, it's often the first weapon they fire. It's good evidence that KJV-onlyism is unsupported by facts or logic.

Remedy

My favourite response to ad hominem (abuse) is simply to acknowledge the truth of the claims, sometimes in as hyperbolic a fashion as possible: "All right, I admit to being an NWO stooge. But my evil overlords have asked me to ask you if you would please address my arguments, instead of my intelligence."

Welcome to the sideshow

King James Onlyism (or KJV-onlyism as I prefer) is a movement within certain Fundamentalist circles, especially independent Fundamentalist Baptists (IFBs). KJV-onlyists believe, to varying degrees, that the Authorized Version of the Bible (commonly known as the King James Version, or KJV, in North America) is exclusively the Word of God in the English language. Some KJV-onlyists take this even farther and claim it is exclusively the Word of God in all languages.

It would be no big deal if the KJV-only camp simply said, "This is our opinion," and left it at that. But the claims being made are not mere preference claims. They are truth claims. Therefore, they ought to be open to scrutiny.

Unfortunately, when you give the arguments used by KJV-onlyists a close examination, they don't stand up. The reasoning employed by the KJV-onlyists is fallacious at its root. It occurred to me that, given enough time, I could build a pretty comprehensive list of logical fallacies by drawing on KJV-only sources alone. And, since you are reading this, that means I have already found ten examples - the minimum number I decided beforehand would make a worthwhile Web site. Of course, there are plenty more where those came from, so this site is still a Work in Progress.

So my purpose is twofold. One, I want to warn people against the specific errors of KJV-onlyism by exposing the faulty reasoning that underlies it. I hope that by pulling the rug out from underneath the KJV-only rhetoric, I might dissuade at least someone who is thinking through the question of Bible translations from accepting this serious error. Of course, I realize that shredding the illogic of the KJV-only arguments is not, in itself, a refutation of the position. KJV-onlyism might still be true despite the illogic. It still remains to show the KJV-only position false  - that is a job for another page.

Two, we Christians are, unfortunately, a credulous lot. So I hope that a presentation of these critical thinking concepts, framed in a Christian theological issue, might help some of the brethren spot bad arguments - of any kind, not merely KJV-onlyism.

And, finally, KJV-onlyism is one of the more laughable errors to fall under the rubric of "Christianity" in recent years. Let's face it: the KJV-only camp is arguably the largest collection of Biblical ignoramuses claiming to know the most important truth about the Bible. What they lack in facts and sound argument, they make up for in volume and tone. I want to take a little of the wind out of the KJV-onlyists' sails by having a good laugh at their expense.

What is a fallacy?

A fallacy is a logical flaw in an argument that renders it invalid. Some people use the word fallacy to refer to any error in reasoning, whether factual or logical. Strictly speaking, however, fallacies are errors of logic rather than errors of fact.

Fallacies can be roughly divided into two major categories: formal and informal. Formal fallacies have to do with the structure of the argument, while informal fallacies have to do with their content.

The sideshow is still a bit under construction, but at least it's presentable. This site was originally hosted on Geocities, until the announcement that Yahoo would be shutting that service down. I decided to transfer it over to Blogger and take advantage of its label feature to categorize the fallacies. In addition to formal and informal logical fallacies, I have also decided to include posts about the sillier arguments some KJV-onlyists like to use: errors of fact or history, bad theology, inept exegesis, eisegesis, a line of weird rationales I've taken to calling "goofy proofs" - and, unfortunately, the kind of rank dishonesty that is all too prevalent in KJV-only circles. So-called "Christians" really ought to know better.

But enough ballyhoo. It's time to step right behind this curtain and see the pickled punk show, while the Swamis of Sophistry flummox you with feats of logical legerdemain.