Evaluating Ezzo's Logic - Part 3
LOGIC #11 --- EVALUATING OPINIONS
An "opinion" is a JUDGMENT -- BASED on an examination of the FACTS. It is an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion FROM evidence.
For example, many people look at the state of the health care funding in this country, and conclude that we should implement some sort of national health care system, administered by the government, and funded by taxes. Many others look at all the same facts, and conclude that such a system would be a disaster and should be resisted.
Same facts -- two different opinions. Why? Because the two sides are emphasizing different facts, or they are drawing different conclusions from the same facts -- or, maybe, because one side is actually wrong!
Both of these positions express a specific viewpoint. Both of them are arguable, because the same facts might lead different reasonable persons to different conclusions. And both opinions are potentially changeable. Upon further examination of the available evidence, a person could -- gasp! -- actually change his mind.
There are, of course, thousands of issues such as this. But there is another group to be identified, and unfortunately, it seems to be the largest group in most cases! That group is made up of those who have opinions that are based on nothing more than their erroneous ideas and false notions -- or even on nothing more than their desire for things to be the way they think things should be.
Those in this group are the hardest to reach with arguments based on facts and logic, because they usually have no facts , and often very little logic, so they are resistant to arguments in those areas. You know the old saying -- "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts."
These are the ones who, when confronted with overwhelming evidence that their opinions are completely baseless, will respond with a statement such as, "Well, I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is just as good as yours" . When their position on some scriptural point is refuted, they fall back on the claim that, after all, every interpretation is just as valid as any other.
The main assertion -- the THESIS -- of an argument is ALWAYS an opinion. If it were really a verifiable FACT that all reasonable persons would accept, there would be no need for an argument. Other opinions -- more specific ones -- usually form the backbone of the argument supporting the main assertion. The person who can marshall actual FACTS to support his opinions has a good chance of persuading a reasonable person to change his mind.
By themselves, however, opinions do NOT make arguments. As a person critically evaluating an argument , you MUST satisfy yourself that the person making the argument HAS specified the evidence, and that the evidence actually does support his opinions.
With these principles in mind -- let us ask some questions about Ezzo's publically expressed opinions:
Does he clearly state his opinions, and back them up with the facts that led him to those conclusions, or does he put forward his opinions AS facts? When he does use purported facts to support his opinions -- such as the facts of history, or medical science, or scripture -- are those facts IN FACT true?
Can his statements of fact be verified or falsified? If they are false, what does that do to his opinions, which are based on them? Are his opinions the result of an honest look at, and a clear examination of, the facts -- or are the facts doctored to support a preconceived opinion?
Think about his use of the Bible. Do the passages he uses, and the way he uses them, support his opinions, or does he impose his opinions on the passages, distorting their real intent in order to make it appear that they support his opinions? When he uses the scriptures to support his arguments, is he careful to follow the standard methods of interpretation that he was taught in seminary, and which he himself CLAIMS to use? Or does he violate that training, and instead, resort to twisting the scriptures and reading his own ideas into them?
How does he respond when others try to show him facts that would contradict his claims? Is he grateful for the new information? Does he admit error and change his opinion? Does he even consider the evidence? What does he do in response to challenges to his opinion?
While Ezzo has SAID that he welcomes criticism -- we should ask several questions about this: Has he EVER acknowledged being wrong about ANY of his claims? Has he EVER retracted ANY of his previous statements? Has he EVER said that he has changed his mind about ANYTHING after being corrected by someone showing him the real facts?
Is Gary Ezzo to be seen as one who has come to a reasonable conclusion from a careful examination of the facts, or has he come to his opinions based on erroneous ideas and false notions -- or even on nothing more than his own desire for things to be the way he wants them to be? If he is wrong about virtually everything that forms the basis for some of his opinions, can his opinions be right, nonetheless? And if he IS wrong, what of the untold harm being done as a result of his error?
Please go to the trouble to evaluate ALL claims -- Ezzo's claims, his critics' claims, his defenders' claims, MY claims -- and your own. The one who is confident that he is in the right has no fear of an examination of the evidence behind his opinions. Knowing this, I am still flabbergasted to see so many of Ezzo's defenders appear to be unwilling to engage in just such an examination.
Next = Definitions one more time
LOGIC #12 --- WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE --- DEFINITIONS
As I explained in previous posts, there are three elements in every argument -- assertions, evidence, and assumptions. Assertions are the claims that need to be supported; evidence is the actual support for the assertions; and assumptions are the beliefs and opinions that tie the evidence to the assertions. Each of these three elements of an argument needs to be analyzed carefully, if one is to accurately evaluate the argument's truth claims.
We have covered assertions. The next several posts will discuss how to examine evidence. To begin with, I need to repeat just a couple of comments I made earlier:
-------------------------------------------
<< EVIDENCE is what proves, or at the least, supports the assertions as true and valid. Evidence consists of definitions, facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions -- all of which work together to demonstrate the validity of the assertions -- or not. Without evidence, assertions are nothing more than bare opinion.
<< Everyone has a right to an opinion, but-- and this is crucial to understand -- no one has a right to have his opinion respected or taken seriously. An opinion EARNS respect when it has been shown by supporting evidence to be WORTHY of respect -- not necessarily proven conclusively, but at least supported as valid. >>
----------------------------------------------
In arguments concerning Christian teachings, scripture is a very important category of evidence. We have discussed Ezzo's use of scripture in here -- endlessly! In addition, I have already written a series of posts concerning hermeneutics -- the principles of interpretation of scripture. If there is anyone in here who has not
read those posts, and who would like them, I would be happy to send them to you.
In the meantime -- I will concentrate this series of posts on OTHER forms of evidence. Now -- as I said, evidence consists primarily of definitions, facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinions. This post concerns DEFINITIONS.
The first step in evaluating evidence is to carefully examine the definitions -- both stated and assumed definitions -- of important terms. In any valid argument, but especially in arguments about abstract ideas, clear and consistent definitions of terms are essential. If the definitions are not stated clearly, then we often cannot tell what the person making the argument is really asserting -- because we cannot tell what the crucial terms actually MEAN to that person.
More problematic -- if the definitions are not normative -- that is, if they are contrived or distorted definitions, far removed from the ordinary definitions used by those knowledgeable in the area under discussion -- and used merely as prejudicial props to support erroneous assertions, then those very definitions, no matter how carefully and clearly stated, are highly suspect. They, in fact, are evidence AGAINST the very argument they are meant to support.
Before accepting Ezzo's assertions, we have an obligation to hold
him accountable for his definitions. This is the very beginning of judging the truth or validity of his primary assertions. It is important to understand that IF Ezzo DOES redefine terms without evidence and distort the actual meanings of the terms, then his assertions lose their force entirely, for a very simple reason. That reason is that using a false definition of one's own creation is NOT the same as discussing the actual thing one is attempting to discuss.
This is one form of a common logical fallacy known as the "Straw Man" argument. The fallacy consists in redefining or mischaracterizing something, then setting about to refute or attack -- or defend -- one's own redefinition or one's own wrong description of that "something." The person has, in essence, created his own "scarecrow" to beat up or prop up -- and he is calling that scarecrow by the name of the something that he wants to attack or defend.
But if that scarecrow -- that "straw man" -- is NOT really the same as the actual thing under discussion, then all of the refutations, accusations, defenses, and assertions are worthless! He has not really touched the actual "thing" he is claiming to discuss!
In terms of Ezzo's definitions of "demand feeding" and "attachment parenting," for example -- it is clear to those who have examined these definitions from a position of knowledge that he has NOT defined these terms according to the standard understanding, but that he has put his own "spin" on them, badly distorting them in the process.
IOW -- he has created "straw men" that he CALLS "demand feeding" and "attachment parenting." In doing so, he has not really touched on the REAL "demand feeding" or the REAL "attachment parenting" at all! He has only beaten up the straw men of his own creation. In so doing, he has rendered his arguments -- to the extent that he has mischaracterized the very things he is arguing about -- worthless.
Moreover, it really doesn't matter, for the purpose of evaluating Ezzo's arguments, whether he has deliberately distorted the meanings, or has simply misunderstood their meanings. Either way -- if his definitions are false, when so are his assertions based on those definitions.
Next = Facts
LOGIC #13 --- WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE --- FACTS
Assertions are claims that require support. Evidence consists of the facts, examples, statistics, expert opinions, and other information that support the assertions. The evidence is supposed to demonstrate the validity of the claims. If the evidence is inadequate or questionable , then the assertions are, at best, doubtful.
FACTS are statements whose truth can be verified by observation and/or research. With apologies, I will repeat a little of what I wrote previously:
--------------------------------------------
<< A *fact* is verifiable - that is, one can determine its truth by checking legitimate sources of information (sources that are universally accepted among those who themselves are widely acknowledged as authorities in a subject). The truth of a fact will be accepted by all reasonable persons -- as far as it is possible to verify that fact.
<< If a statement of fact is verified by standard methods of investigation, but is not accepted by a person, then that person is NOT reasonable -- UNLESS he can provide powerful evidence for his rejection of that fact. In addition, any person who does publicly dispute such facts has a responsibility to support his opposition with evidence. >>
------------------------------------------
In this discussion we have looked at scores of assertions of fact made by Gary Ezzo. Most of them should be able to be confirmed or negated by an evaluation of the evidence. When a person makes a series of "factual" claims, and one after another of those claims proves true upon investigation of the facts, then he shows himself to be RELIABLE as a source of information, even if he occasionally slips up . The question then becomes: Is he amenable to correction in those few areas where he has erred? If so, then he is a TRUSTWORTHY source of information.
OTOH -- when a person makes a series of claims, and one after another of those claims proves FALSE upon investigation of the facts, then he shows himself to be UNRELIABLE, even if he occasionally gets something right! The question then becomes: Is HE amenable to correction in those MANY areas where he has erred? If so, we can trust his sincerity, but we should STILL be wary of his information.
Even if he IS amenable to correction, the one who demonstrates a habit of erroneous claims is STILL unreliable UNTIL he demonstrates that he HAS accepted correction and IS more accurate in his claims. But -- what
if such a person is NOT amenable to correction? What if he, instead, entrenches himself and refuses correction, even in the face of overwhelming evidence? What if his primary method for dealing with correction is simply to vilify the person making the correction -- and even to attack those asking questions -- and EVEN attacking those REPORTING on the controversy? Is this the kind of person who should be trusted to be an accurate and reliable disseminator of the truth?
Sometimes the facts are hard to come by with respect to a controversial issue. But there are always SOME facts to be found, and THOSE facts can be used as a good test of a person's accuracy, reliability, and trustworthiness. As I say repeatedly: TRACK RECORD SPEAKS VOLUMES.
What about Ezzo's track record -- in science, in history, in definitions, in exegesis, in hermeneutics, in FACTS?
Next = Statistics
LOGIC #14 --- WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE --- STATISTICS
In my last couple of posts on logic, I have been discussing various kinds of evidence. We have covered DEFINITIONS and FACTS. The third kind of evidence to evaluate is STATISTICS.
Statistics frighten and confuse a lot of people, but we can think of them as nothing more than FACTS employing numbers. The problem here is that so many people do NOT know how to evaluate statistical facts accurately, and that dishonest people deliberately misuse such facts in argument.
We have all seen some pretty extreme twisting of numbers in a lot of arguments, I am sure. OTOH -- a correct understanding of statistical facts, and an accurate and fair use of them, will often make the difference between a sound argument and a worthless one.
Like other facts, statistics are often "facts" that can be checked by conferring with an authoritative source. For example, if two people are arguing about certain sports statistics, it should be easy to find an authoritative source of the statistics in question that would end the argument.
For ex. -- while it may be fun for Stevie and Ryan, while taking turns pushing each other off of swings in the playground, to argue over who was the better slugger, Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth -- it is stupid to argue over how many home runs each actually hit, since those statistics are documented.
Some good questions to ask yourself whenever you are confronted with statistical evidence:
* Are the numbers accurate?
* What do they really mean?
* Are they relevant?
* Do they provide sufficient evidence to support the argument?
* Has the one providing the statistics misreported, misinterpreted such evidence?
What about Ezzo's statistics? Are they accurate? Are they reliable? What is their foundation? WHERE did he get them from? HOW does he report them? What about his medical arguments?
Next = Examples
LOGIC #15 --- WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE --- EXAMPLES
There are four primary kinds of evidence used to support an argument -- facts, statistics, examples, and expert opinion. The fifth kind of We have discussed facts and statistics. This post concerns EXAMPLES.
EXAMPLES are specific instances of the point being made, and there are three main categories of examples: historical "facts," personal experiences, and hypothetical cases.
I. HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES
Hypothetical examples can be considered good examples if they are "normative" -- that is, if they really do represent the case. But many hypothetical examples violate this logical principle. Here are some things to watch out for in a hypothetical example:
A. Is it painted in extreme terms? Is the contrast or comparison so striking that credulity is strained to the maximum?
B. Is there actual credible evidence given anywhere in the argument to support the intended conclusions of the hypothetical examples?
C. Are the examples so extreme as to amount to scare tactics and sweeping generalizations?
D. Are the examples solid and representative, or are they virtually equivalent to the hyperbole exercised in the most outrageous and illogical of arguments -- more akin to an infomercial than to a reasoned argument?
II. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
The second kind of evidence by example is PERSONAL EXPERIENCE . PE's are used constantly in all kinds of arguments -- especially in arguments designed to sell something or to persuade others to take a certain course of action . While PE's can be very persuasive -- and while they are not automatically to be dismissed as evidence, there are certain cautions the critical thinker should exercise as he evaluates them:
A. PE's drawn from "true believers" or "dedicated followers" of a particular system suffer from the problem of bias much more seriously than does the testimony of a disinterested outsider. The one who has "bought into" the system has an enormous personal stake in the outcome, and often has a strong motive -- even unconsciously -- to "select" evidence that appears to support the system while dismissing or ignoring the evidence that would oppose it.
This is not a pejorative comment in the least -- simply a statement of fact that any logician could verify. The same dynamic is at work among Christians, atheists, baseball fans, political junkies, and just about any group of people dedicated to a cause.
B. To be sure -- it is often the case that opponents of the system could be biased in their view of the evidence also. The best source of unbiased information would be a neutral third party. In this case -- there is a LOT of evidence to be found, with the result that there are precious few who remain neutral for long, since a great many of those who begin as neutral third parties quickly "take sides" upon an investigation of the actual evidence.
C. PE's "work" as evidence when they actually support the truth claims they are "testifying" about -- NOT when they merely say things such as "It blessed me" or "It worked for me," or "Ezzo says."
D. PE's that support the claims of Ezzo are only valuable to the extent that they match or exceed the PE's that give witness to the problems caused by those claims, AND to the extent that they REFUTE those negative claims! Along with the many claims that "it blessed me and my family," we have seen just as many, or more, claims that "it caused serious problems for me, my family, my friendships, my church, etc."
E. IF PE's are to be used as evidence, then ALL the PE's are to used. IOW -- it is both illogical and dishonest to accept the claims of "success" and "blessing" while ignoring or dismissing the claims of failure or serious problems. In addition -- we should add in all the PE's concerning the serious divisions among family members, among friends, and in churches over this issue. All of THESE PE's are extremely important in evaluating the "fruit" of Ezzoism.
F. Ezzo himself and many of his defenders have NEVER accepted the PE's concerning the problems and failures encountered by many people who were dedicated to making Ezzoism work for them. They dismiss any and all problems with the claims that they are the result of sin in the life of the person encountering the problem, or satanic opposition against the "higher standards," or "jealousy" of Ezzo's superior way, or being "too lazy or too stupid" to follow Ezzo correctly, or -- if that doesn't work -- of following Ezzo TOO closely. And so on.
G. Logically, most of the negative PE's are very powerful as evidence, for they almost assuredly come from people who originally had a commitment to making the "system" work -- people who were positively predisposed toward Ezzo and his ideas; after all, they were trying to follow what he taught! Many of them are STILL supportive, even while experiencing the problems.
III. HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS
The third kind of example is HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. This kind of example can be a powerful form of evidence if it is accurate, relevant, representative, and adequate - AND if it is interpreted accurately. I won't say much about this form of evidence, because it is actually quite simple to check up on Ezzo's historical claims.
-----------------------------------------
Concerning all three of these kinds of examples -- here are four questions to ask yourself:
1) Are the example accurate? Are they based on direct observation, research, and trustworthy sources? Or are they pure invention, used for the purpose of vilifying one side in an argument, or glorifying the other? For example -- are Ezzo's arguments concerning breastfeeding accurate, or are they an inaccurate picture designed to lead to one, and only one, conclusion?
2) Are they relevant? Do they come from sources with authority and expertise in the field under discussion, and do they relate directly to the point being made?
3) Are they representative? Do they reflect the full range of the samples from which they are supposedly taken? IOW -- do they truly reflect what is generally true about the subject at hand?
4) Are they adequate? Is the "evidence" plentiful enough and specific enough to support Ezzo's claims?
Next = Expert Opinion
End of third post -- one more to go.