Tools of Apologetics 1.18.5
Debating Techniques
An Analysis Of The Standard Techniques
Chapter 5
Debaters’ Tricks — II
2-Generalization/Misguiding: Generalization means presenting the subject in such a way that what is applicable only in some cases are applied to all. In this way, or in similar ways, the audience is misguided. This is done so cleverly that the audience keeps thinking that the speaker is presenting right arguments or deductions. For example, many anti Christian teachers use the Relativity Theory in this way. After teaching Relativity, they claim that this proves that "all things are relative" and therefore there are nothing like moral absolutes. This is misguiding through generalization because the Theory Of Relativity applies only to the study of objects in motion, not to anything else.
It is always helpful to reflect in advance upon the boundaries of the subject that one is discussing. Then it becomes easier to spot generalization if anyone crosses those boundaries. This preparation is essential because when a generalization is introduced suddenly, it often becomes difficult to spot the attempt at misguiding. Some specific examples of generalization and misguiding are given below as illustration:
MAKING STATEMENTS IN WHICH "ALL" IS USED, BUT WHERE "SOME" OUGHT TO BE USED: This is perhaps the most common way in which generalization is misused. It is so much so that many of us fall into it without even realizing it. In every society there are things that are often done by "some" people, but not by all. For example, some politicians are corrupt. But so are some people in all other professions. However, when people use this information to label "all" politicians, evangelists, pastors, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc. corrupt, they are trying to misguide the listeners through (often deliberate) generalization. It is often possible — by using leading questions — to show this all/some distinctions, and that will be sufficient to diffuse the argument.
EXTENSION OF THE OPPONONT’S POSITION THROUGH REPEATED CONTRADICTIONS OR MISREPRESENTATIONS: A more clever method of generalization is to do it slowly and continually, in steps, rather that presenting a single-step generalization. When an idea is presented suddenly, the opponents might be able to spot the fallacy.
But when the same thing is done gradually, it becomes more difficult to detect the exact error. Thus debaters often begin with a specific position of opponents, and then gradually and step by step misrepresent their opponent till at the end their broad deduction has no connection with the opponent’s argument.
For example, when Christian Apologists speak about the Inspiration of the Bible, opponents try to extend this to imply belief in Inspiration as belief in some kind of mechanical dictation. Similarly, opponents of Inerrancy and Infallibility try to extend these beliefs to portray Bible-believing people as bibliolators (those who worship the Bible as God).
The best method of fighting against such misinterpretation is to present the accurate view repeatedly and then contrast it with the inaccurate view trickily imposed by the opponent.
EMPLOYING GENERALLY ACCEPTED INFORMATION AS PREMISES FOR DEDUCING ERRONEOUS IDEAS: When debaters start presenting their ideas by using generally accepted and reliable information, most people in the audience get the impression that they are being fair and trying to represent truth. However, many of them gradually introduce erroneous ideas and eventually present totally false deductions. When the beginning is right, it often becomes very difficult to discern the stage at which error has been introduced. Christian Apologists will have to be alert to detect the point at which this switch to error occurs. Then they will have to carefully show the public where truth and error were brought together to misguide people.
ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY: When discussing difficult subjects, people often bring in the analogy of known phenomena to explain the unknown. For example, the idea of the Trinity is often explained by showing that ice, water and steam are three in identity, but are the same substance. The above analogy is very imperfect and can thus can lead to serious errors of interpretation if pressed too far. At the same time, in the hands of a skilled communicator, analogies can be helpful to communicate and clarify difficult and abstract ideas. However, instead of communicating and clarifying, when analogies are used to debate and prove an argument, the use is often illegal.
The Christian Apologist should thus carefully distinguish between using analogy for clarification and using it to prove an argument. The former can be valid in many situations, while the latter is invalid in most situations.Also, even when the analogy is used for the purpose of explaining an idea, the Apologist must be careful. All analogies are imperfect, but some are totally useless. Also, many of them are forced analogies, with no real similarities. None of them should be entertained by the Christian Apologist, because in the end they can lead to meaningless debates of the analogy while the main thrust of the argument is lost.
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats