Sunday, 7 February 2010

logical fallacies on tekton

JP Holding (aka bob turkel) really needs to learn some basic logic. His website is full of examples of text book examples of logical fallacies. To demonstrate this i went through his homepage and found ten on the home page alone: naming the authors of the articles on tekton he is comiting the apeal to authority falacy. for example 'william lane craig on preterism' is a classic example of this
2.loaded language. 'trusting the new testament' assumes that the new testament is trustworthy.
3.the subtitle 'education and pologetics ministry' is an equovication between the words education and apologetics.
4.having a last updated date is example of cronological snobbery. something is true independantly of when it was written so making out bob turkel regualy updates the website is irelevant.
5.there is a cartoon picture of a scholar, this is a false analogy
6.the apologetics encyclopedia is an appeal to ignorance as if falls back on bob turkels ignroance of stuff
7.boasting aabout the fact tekton have 1500 articles is an appeal ad populum
8.the bullet point 'how personable is god' is a loaded question as it presposes god exists
9.describing theologyweb as an exclusive place for debate is a hasty generalisation (and indeed there are plenty of other places for debate)
10.the tekton e-block bullet points form a non-sequiturd

now seeing as this is the home page, im sure the articles themselves contain far more logical errors. Now lets ignore that and be generour and assume there are ten logical falacies on a page. thats 10x1500 which for those who arent any good at maths is 150000 errors. So the bottom line is this:

Tekton apolgetics website contains 150000 textbook examples of logical fallacies


johnny said...

Just curious, Mike.. were you brave enough to point them out at the tekton site or even on tweb?


johnny said...

Hi Mike,

If it's true that Richard Dawkins finally discovered that Ravi Zacharias exists, i imagine that you'll soon be trying to discredit Ravi just as your failed attempt to discredit Holding's work...

Before going that route though, i thought you might like to have a bit of a listen..

Part 2:

Part 1: