I have been inspired by this
to demonstrate that there is
an obvious influence by anti-masons on this board who are upset that the opposite view point is being presented.
It should be noted that the thread which this one responds to has actually chosen to "lift" some of my points. I believe the reality that the
anti-masons must do this to prove some undue masonic influence speaks for itself.
Table of Contents
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- Ad Ignorantium
- Appeal to Fear
- Ad Hominem (circumstantial)
- Red Herring
- Straw Man Arguments
- Hasty Generalizations
- False Dilemma Fallacies
- Sweeping Generalizations
- Confusing Burden of Proof
- Circular Reasoning
The thread in question presumes to randomly pick logical fallacies, which are actually those used by the anti-masons on this board, and presumes to
present definitions of such fallacy while failing to actually provide such examples. This is a classic tactic by such posters: to simply tell us that
something exists, without providing proof or logic. I shall demonstrate instead through examples of threads on this forum how such posters are
influencing the secret societies board against the masons who post.
The anti-masons of the Above Top Secret forums are intentionally trying to stop any criticism leveled at their theories by posting threads like the
inspiration for this one. In addition to continually attacking masons who respond to their threads, using any or all of the above mentioned logical
fallacies, they also take part in the common argumentative tactics listed above to manipulate their theories.
The secret societies forum is supposed to be an open forum to discuss any topics of perceived secret societies. While scholars have agreed that
masonry is not actually a secret society (Bogdan 2007), I will for the sake of this thread assume that masonry is a legitimate discussion for this
forum because it is perceived to be a secret society.
A discussion in a forum should allow for both view points - if some posters wish to discuss conspiracy theories related to masonry, then masons
themselves should also be allowed to present evidence or logic against such theories. While this is happening, the anti-masons are growing upset over
this development and are thus attempting to stop this two way discussion.
In an attempt to somehow "prove" masonic influence, anti-masons have decided to simply list logical fallacies and declare that somehow masons are
using all of them. I submit that this is nothing but an attempt to shield the reality that anti-masons have always used these logical fallacies to
shield against masonic responses to their theories. As such, I have compiled a introductory (but not exhaustive) list of the tactics anti-masons have
used in this forum.
The nature of a logical fallacy is that all statements of argument are a series of precepts followed by a conclusion. A logical statement is one which
the precepts MUST lead to the conclusion provided. Logical fallacies are methods of argumentation used to make it appear as though the precepts lead
to the conclusion presented. In fact, logical fallacies are actually rhetoric devices used to shield their users from facing the reality that the
precepts they have set out do not lead to the conclusion they have arrived at.
In the context of this forum, the practical application of such fallacies means that anti-masons usually present a string of seemingly unrelated
facts, and then conclude that there must be some sort of evil masonic cabal going on. I offer as initial proof again
thread, which shows a anti-mason presenting a
string of seemingly unrelated logical fallacies without examples in an attempt to "prove" undue masonic influence. I am sure that the irony will not
be lost on the forum that the thread uses logical fallacies - while trying to explain how masons use them.
Please note that all references for logical fallacies can be found here
. I will not be referring to this
link nor quoting from it because I have several years of academic training in fallacies - however, I welcome all posters to check the validity of the
logical fallacy explanations presented here through this link.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Latin for "after the thing then because of it," this fallacy is quite often the basis for all anti-mason claims of undue masonic influence. This
fallacy was utilized by native man in believing that when he performed rain dances, and it rained, that he caused the rain. The logical fallacy is
that there is no reason to believe that just because two events follow each other in sequential order, that a casual relationship exists. The two
events could be completely autonomous, and have no casual relationship.
In symbolic terms, you might view this fallacy in the following way:
3) Therefore, X caused Y.
An example of anti-masons using this fallacy can be found here
, where a poster claims
that because current "masonic symbols" appear historically after the symbol has occured in other cultures and/or times, that the current symbols
must have a relationship.
This is invalid, and is a use of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Latin for "to argue from ignorance," this is a classical logical fallacy used by anti-mason on this board. The argument is structured in the
1) X claim is presented
2) Y claim is the opposite of X claim.
2) X claim is true because X or Y cannot be proven false.
This is a fallacy because the nature of claim X is often innately structure such that it cannot be proven true or false, but the reality is that just
because evidence contrary to X cannot be provided does not mean X is actually true. We can observe this logical fallacy in action
in this thread
, where it was shown how an anti-mason used it.
[edit on 11-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]
[edit on 11-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]