Leaderboard

Every once in a while, in society and here, there's someone who engages in this specific fallacy. "I must be right because I'm in the minority." "I must be right because lots of people keep insisting I'm wrong." "If I wasn't right after all, people wouldn't be trying to say I'm wrong!" Since this comes up, I thought I'd give this its own thread. It's a logical fallacy, which is not unknown among ex-twi, and this specific one is the private turf of the self-appointed experts, the self-proclaimed voices in the wilderness, the ones sure they are MORE right BECAUSE people refute them all the time. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/202006/the-galileo-gambit-and-appealing-ignorance The Galileo Gambit and Appealing to Ignorance The fact that you are probably wrong, doesn’t mean you’re right. When pseudo-scientists have been bested by the solid evidence and careful research of actual accredited experts (aka authorities on a subject), they will almost inevitably pull out this quote from Galileo: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." In their mind, they are like Galileo—the lone voice of reason, standing up for the truth against an onslaught of ignorant authorities. And this, more than anything else, in their minds, proves that they are right: “The mainstream laughed at Galileo when he said the sun was the center of the solar system; that flew against conventional wisdom too, but that turned out to be right. So my theory is right too.” But there’s a name for this: The Galileo Gambit—and it is a recognized and well-known fallacy. The Galileo Gambit The Galileo Gambit engages in many mistakes, but the main one is this: It’s a faulty analogy. The fact that two persons have one thing in common does not mean that they have everything in common—or even, another thing in common. Yes, the authorities thought Galileo was wrong, and they also think that you are wrong—but the fact that he turned out to be right doesn’t mean that you are. As Carl Sagan once put it: “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” And for every genius who bucked the system and turned out to be right, there are a thousand that bucked the system and turned out to be wrong. If you disagree with the experts, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to be one of the Bozos. And disregarding all the times those who disagreed with the authorities turned out to be wrong, makes one guilty of even more fallacious reasoning: confirmation bias, availability error, and denying the evidence. Authority vs. Humble Reasoning With that clearly laid out, one might wonder why Galileo said what he said. Why would he think that the findings of one lone person could overrule expert consensus? Well, is that really what he meant? Let’s look at that quote again, and concentrate on a couple of words. In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Notice that he doesn’t say a single person can override the informed consensus of experts. He said it can override the authority of many. But what authority would Galileo have been talking about? Who said he was wrong? It wasn’t scientists. It was the church! He's talking about religious authorities. So what he is saying is that a bunch of people claiming something on authority alone (i.e., without evidence, because of tradition, or “because the Bible says so”) is not worth much. It can be easily overridden. What’s more, he’s not saying that the fact that one lone person merely disagreeing with the authorities is a good reason to think that one lone person is right. He is saying that a lone person’s humble reasoning is better than mere authority. Authority alone cannot outweigh the evidence of just one person who presents a good and careful scientific argument. In the same way, however, he would undoubtedly agree that the humble reasoning of just one individual cannot outweigh the humble reasoning of 100, especially if they are all checking each other’s work for errors (i.e., peer review). Indeed — what could be less humble than thinking that you, alone, know better than all the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying a topic? So a lone genius can overturn the consensus if the consensus is just based on tradition, or authority, but not if that consensus was reached through the long arduous careful process known as the scientific method." (For the curious, it's a good article, and it does continue.)

I don’t mean to belabor this - but maybe to point out some distinctions: wierwille taught about the Christ in you and the gift of holy spirit (lower case “h” and “s”) but in my opinion there might have been a twofold purpose : he was blowing smoke up ‘believers’ a$$es - to inflate their egos and have them draw a correlation with the power behind wierwille’s ministry - in other words, he probably wanted followers to assume he exemplified living by the power of Christ in you. The idea of wierwille subliminally substituting himself in place of Christ’s authority has been touched on a few times on this thread. I think that is the nuance that needs to be highlighted. Sure, he taught it was Christ in you. But I think here is another one of those wierwille switcheroos - like a Stepford Wives ‘syndrome’. What I think wierwille taught as the real you - the Christ in you - was his ideal of the perfect TWI-follower - compliant…obedient to the man of God…’not my will but thine (the cult-leader’s will ) be done’. The real…actual…immanent Christ may very well be present - but if His authority and directives are not acknowledged - for all practical purposes one could consider Him absent. Religion deals in a lot of abstracts. For those who believe in a God - I bet no two people think of him or her in exactly the same way. At the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ - I know I’m stating the obvious here - but the message of the gospel gives us a bunch of reference points to think somewhat more objectively of Jesus Christ and by extension the Father. To reinterpret John 14:9 - he who is observes Jesus’ words and deeds is also seeing the Father. The fact that wierwille focused primarily on Pauline letters may also be a factor in why his theology was unmoored from traditional Christianity. While it is true, we don’t know Christ after the flesh as II Corinthians 5:16 says - I don’t think that means we ignore His words and deeds recorded in the gospels. It’s about our perspective being changed. A natural view of Christ led to His crucifixion and Paul persecuting followers of Christ. After Paul’s conversion he had a divine perspective of Christ. And so do we when we read of His words and deeds. The gospels provide us with the touchstone for living Christ-like. On the other hand, reflecting on some of the things I’ve witnessed wierwille say and do - it’s obvious to me now his reference point was not Jesus Christ - but himself. So he came up with ‘great’ redefinitions like “anything done in the love of God is okay.” Where does it say that in Paul’s letters - or for that matter in the gospels? A TWI-follower thinking about the ‘Christ in you’ could mean something totally different from a member of a local church feeling compelled to help a homeless person.

I know I must have confirmation bias because I keep telling myself I'm a genius.

Oh the irony. They don't have time to fellowship because they are too busy AND important. The link to their website talks about where you can go to church at a persons home. The mixture of the word “fellowship” to be synonymous with “church meeting” really waters down true Christian fellowship at the same time walks all over peoples private boundaries. A “fellowship” is a sanctioned TWi entity with a debt-free coordinator that participates in sts hookups and financially shares with twi. That basically usurps the Biblical Christian definition of the word and fits it into TWIs warped control format. The word “household” is there to further promote the doctrinal error of isolationist logic. Isolationist logic is cult logic. They isolate to control.

when I read the collaterals, I touch myself

Refer to Thomas Paine's wisdom: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

We have an innate capacity for mirroring, for imitating. It may be an evolutionary adaptation to facilitate how we learn to talk as babies. Mirror neurons simply provide an ability to imitate, to mirror. This is not learning. But imitation may be a form of learning by rote. A superficial, shallow, temporal form of learning. Find out what it means to learn.

We agree on the shuddering . . . and I think that is important . . . that instinctive reaction to something being wrong Extreme Narcissists are little children in adult bodies. A grown adult wants to imitate like a small child, . . . . imitate who? Or be imitated? By who? And why?

wierwille did teach about the ‘Christ in you’ but in my opinion there might have been a twofold purpose : he was blowing smoke up ‘believers’ a$$es - to inflate their egos and have them draw a correlation with the power behind wierwille’s ministry - in other words, he probably wanted followers to assume he exemplified living by the power of ‘Christ in you’. I believe wierwille subliminally substituted himself in place of Christ’s authority by the ambiguous images he conveyed to followers. Sure, he taught it was ‘Christ in you’. But I think here is another one of those wierwille switcheroos - like a Stepford Wives ‘syndrome’. What I think wierwille taught as the real you – the ‘Christ in you’ – was his idea of the perfect TWI-follower - compliant…obedient to the man of God…’not my will but thine (the cult-leader’s will ) be done’. The real…actual…immanent Christ may very well be present - but if His authority and directives are not acknowledged - for all practical purposes one could consider Him absent. Religion deals in a lot of abstracts. I bet no two people think of Jesus Christ in the same way. At the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ - I know I’m stating the obvious here - but the full message of the gospel gives us a bunch of reference points to think somewhat more objectively of Jesus Christ and by extension the Father. To reinterpret John 14:9 he who observes Jesus’ words and deeds will also recognize the Father. The fact that wierwille focused primarily on Pauline letters may also be a factor in why his theology was unmoored from traditional Christianity. While it is true, we don’t know Christ after the flesh as II Corinthians 5:16 says - I don’t think that means we ignore His words and deeds recorded in the gospels. It’s about a change in perspective. The people having a natural point of view of Christ led to His crucifixion and Paul persecuting followers of Christ. After Paul’s conversion he had a divine perspective of Christ. And so do we as Christians reading of His words and deeds. The gospels provide us with the touchstone for living Christ-like. On the other hand, reflecting on some of the things I’ve witnessed wierwille say and do - it’s obvious to me now his reference point was not Jesus Christ - but himself. So, he came up with ‘great’ redefinitions like “anything done in the love of God is okay.” Where does it say that in the gospels - or for that matter in Paul's letters? A TWI-follower thinking about the ‘Christ in you’ could mean something totally different from a member of a local church feeling compelled to help a homeless person.

According to your reasoning the Greasespot Players have prepared a short skit for you. Joe Sixpack: I have an invisible six foot rabbit that follows me around. Johnny Jump up: That's not possible. Maggie Muggins: There are no six foot rabbits. Snowball Pete: Invisible? Joe Sixpack: You knowingly wrong people are objecting to my statement, so I must be right. (Everybody bows. Exit stage left.)

I'm no expert, but shouldn't there be more than one?

The one who claims to HAVE the Truth is surely the one who does not. That which can be possessed is not Truth.

Trust ... but verify!

The easiest person to fool is yourself. Beleeving that you know that you know that you know is a fool's errand. Doubt is a virtue.

At least that's the excuse they give you when you ask, right?

Known wrong people? Known wrong by who? Is there a possibility that you're wrong and the time and effort you perceive as being spent to bury what's said is actually them attempting to correct the record and give a balanced view of the facts?

According to whom? Or, who says?

And a fellowship of the ring is a circular fellowship.

What's a spiritual fellowship?

Both equations have The Word. So we can equate them. And with each variable you can make a new function. So we can can modify this so the fun never ends. But I would reduce it to Shared Fantasy, the term from Sam Vaknin, the self proclaimed narcissist expert.

So… TWI+VPW+SharedFantasy+PFAL+Collaterals = The Word I like it. Makes sense in context. HOWEVER… That’s not Mike’s formula. His is: YourBelieving+YourWalk+ChristInYou+TheBible = The Word

The Way International, VPW, a shared fantasy between all participants PFAL and the collaterals as opposed to The Bible.

I wonder what that does to a person . . . If you're surrounded by non-responses over and over and over. . . . Do our minds develop in the absence of other people? I guess The Word takes the place of the absent minds.

Usually, what you picture would be the actual response. The other pat responses were: I’m just trying to rightly divide the word of truth…or… Well, I’ve never been asked that question (exasperated sigh). When I read that passage about the crowing cocks, it was in the fellowship house after the tithe was collected. I was so floored, so astonished, so dumbfounded by the stupidity, I couldn’t speak. I froze. It was horrifying to me the credulousness of these people - that they would believe anything, ANYTHING, that was attributed to victor paul wierwille.

Great lyrics, I've always loved Corey Glovers voice and Vernon Reid, the guitarist, is a jazz/fusion monster!

Living Colour, "Cult of Personality." "Look in my eyes, what do you see? The cult of personality. I know your anger, I know your dreams. I've been everything you wanna be. I'm the cult of personality. Like Mussolini and Kennedy, I'm the cult of personality, The cult of personality, The cult of personality. Neon lights, Nobel Prize When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies. You won't have to follow me, Only you can set me free. I sell the things you need to be. I'm the smiling face on your TV. I'm the cult of personality. I exploit you, still you love me. I tell you one and one makes three. I'm the cult of personality. Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi, I'm the cult of personality, The cult of personality, The cult of personality. Neon lights, Nobel Prize When a leader speaks, that leader dies. You won't have to follow me, Only you can set you free. You gave me fortune. You gave me fame. You gave me power in your God's name. I'm every person you need to be. I'm the cult of personality."