Poisoning the Well

A Logical Fallacy Named & Explained - Part 1

Name: the Poisoning the Well fallacy

Definition: Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to attempt to discredit the person's argument.

-//-

What's wrong with this?:

The problem here is that the truth or falsity of a particular argument is not contingent, in any way, on the moral character of the one making that argument. Two plus two still equals four, even if that equation comes from the mouth of a perverted rapist. With that said, however, it is prudentially advisable that one not give an occasion for bad thinking or unnecessary stereo-typing, especially the Biblical Christian. Once again, though, bad thinking is inexcusable, for the one committing it has intellectual responsibilities as well.

-//-

Examples:

(1) Daniel is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what ol' Danny boy has to say about the subject.

(2) Don't listen to Todd because he is a loser professor, and we know how they are.

(3) Matt is a womanizer and he has the nerve to speak on issues of theology . . . some theology that must be.

What is "Subordinationism?"

Subordinationism:

Subordinationism is a Christological perspective viewing Jesus as subordinate to the Father.

-//-

Over the years, this term has been used of an estimation of the Son as either "subject" to the Father (especially in His redemptive role) or as essentially (or, in very essence) "inferior" to the Father. Theologians thus differentiate between a functional subordination and an ontological subordination.

-//-

*functional subordination -- having to do with office, role, duty, position;

*ontological subordination -- having to do with nature, essence, being, oneself;

-//-

I do not believe that the Bible supports the position of ontological subordination. I do support the functional subordination viewpoint. I believe that I am Biblically justified in claiming that we could take this a step further into the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology), saying that the Holy Spirit is functionally subordinate to Jesus the Son who is then functionally subordinate to the Father.

Scientism? Not So Much!

Scientism: A Concise Critique

Here I'll offer a definition of the worldview[i] of "scientism," after which I will proceed to expose its most fundamental logical error.

-//-

Scientism = the idea that "science" is the only reliable form of knowledge; or, better yet, that scientific experimentation via induction and empirical observation is the only reliable means of obtaining reliable knowledge . . .

-//-

One who operates from this mindset or worldview is likely to say the following: . . . but science is "fact-based” (that is, based on what I perceive through one or more of the five senses) while religion is "faith-based” . . .


The Problem:
Since such a one has exalted “science” (or empirical observation) as the ONLY reliable source of knowledge, only accepting that which can be empirically “proved,” we need to point out a huge and rather embarrassing error in his or her thinking; namely, that there is absolutely no way for the proponent of Scientism to "prove" that “science” deserves this status in the first place.

Allow me to illustrate this (pay close attention):

Can a person who makes such a simplistic claim about knowledge, science, and religion make an empirical-based argument that science, or empirical observation, is the only objective source of knowledge? That is, since his claim is that scientific endeavors are the only reliable ways to obtain truth on an issue, then how does he go about proving that statement or claim itself? The statement, or claim, fails to meet its own requirements. It therefore commits ideological suicide.

If he tries, he will either dissolve into circular logic (a.k.a. begging the question, circular reasoning), saying that one sensory experience verifies another sensory experience, or he will try to make some sort of philosophical argument for the supremacy of science. Yet if science's authority rests upon a philosophical argument, then philosophy (not science) must then be supreme.

Do you see the problem? If not, read and re-read until you do. Try to master the thinking of those last two paragraphs.

I say that "scientism" is a self-refuting system/position and is therefore untenable (incapable of being maintained in an argument). It is easily discredited. In fact, it’s a rather embarrassing position to hold to, even though it is very popular in our day.

-//-

I’ll end there this time. This may be short, but I risk too much by going further. It is better to learn all of a little rather than none of a lot! I am learning that day by day! I encourage you all to spend some time with the short lesson above.

___________________________________________________________________

[i] By worldview, I have in mind a comprehensive view, or philosophy, of the world (reality). More specifically, everyone has a worldview and always works from that basic foundation (whether they have a name for it or not, and whether they are conscious of it or not is irrelevant). A worldview consists of a network of interrelated propositions the sum of which forms a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world. A given worldview may be called a “religion” or a “philosophy” because of its specific content, but it is nevertheless a worldview. Thus by worldview, I am referring to any religion, philosophy, or system of thought. [Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions; Boston, Massachusetts: Reformation Ministries International, 2004; pp. 17-18.]