Array

Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"/Case study/An attempt to dismiss Rosalynde Welch because of who she is related to: Difference between revisions

m (→‎top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}, replaced: -- → —)
No edit summary
 
Line 10: Line 10:
}}
}}
{{parabreak}}
{{parabreak}}
 
<h7>John Dehlin's Ad Hominem Fallacy</h7>
This is a textbook example of an ''ad hominem response''. Specifically, this is the ''ad hominem circumstantial'', in which one claims that one’s opponent makes a claim because she “is in circumstances such that [s]he is disposed to take a particular position. ''Ad hominem circumstantial'' constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.”<ref>“[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_circumstantial#Circumstantial Ad hominem: circumstantial],” Wikipedia  (accessed 3 July 2012). </ref>
This is a textbook example of an ''ad hominem response''. Specifically, this is the ''ad hominem circumstantial'', in which one claims that one’s opponent makes a claim because she “is in circumstances such that [s]he is disposed to take a particular position. ''Ad hominem circumstantial'' constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.”<ref>“[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_circumstantial#Circumstantial Ad hominem: circumstantial],” Wikipedia  (accessed 3 July 2012). </ref>
   
   
Now, it could be that Dehlin is right—it could be that Welch’s family associations bias her reading of the data.  If family connections mean anything in assessing her argument, Welch’s father is on the board of the Miller-Eccles study group in California. This group has drawn upon a wide spectrum of LDS and ex-LDS voices, and can hardly be called “apologetic.”<ref>See “Past Speakers (Page 1),” http://www.millereccles.org/?page_id=49 and “Past Speakers (Page 2),” http://www.millereccles.org/?page_id=379 (accessed 7 July 2012).</ref>
Now, it could be that Dehlin is right—it could be that Welch’s family associations bias her reading of the data.  If family connections mean anything in assessing her argument, Welch’s father is on the board of the Miller-Eccles study group in California. This group has drawn upon a wide spectrum of Latter-day Saint and ex-Latter-day Saint voices, and can hardly be called “apologetic.”<ref>See “Past Speakers (Page 1),” http://www.millereccles.org/?page_id=49 and “Past Speakers (Page 2),” http://www.millereccles.org/?page_id=379 (accessed 7 July 2012).</ref>


Such facts illustrate the perils of ad hominem: Dehlin ignores factors that could influence Welch in the opposite direction. To create a valid counter-argument, Dehlin must first demonstrate that the bias exists and that it significantly distorts how she presents data. He must then rebut her arguments with this bias corrected, not simply resort to ''ad hominem'' dismissal. If he can show that her biases have skewed how she presents or interprets data, then family connections or other ideological biases may explain why, and such analysis would not be guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.
Such facts illustrate the perils of ad hominem: Dehlin ignores factors that could influence Welch in the opposite direction. To create a valid counter-argument, Dehlin must first demonstrate that the bias exists and that it significantly distorts how she presents data. He must then rebut her arguments with this bias corrected, not simply resort to ''ad hominem'' dismissal. If he can show that her biases have skewed how she presents or interprets data, then family connections or other ideological biases may explain why, and such analysis would not be guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.


In a variety of the same tactic, Dehlin elsewhere declares that much of Rosalynn Welch’s father-in-law’s life’s work has been judged a waste because of the actions of LDS leaders.<ref>John Dehlin, post on mormondiscussions.com, 8 May 2012 (7:54 AM), {{antilink|1=http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=584595#p584595}}</ref>
In a variety of the same tactic, Dehlin elsewhere declares that much of Rosalynn Welch’s father-in-law’s life’s work has been judged a waste because of the actions of Latter-day Saint leaders.<ref>John Dehlin, post on mormondiscussions.com, 8 May 2012 (7:54 AM), {{antilink|1=http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=584595#p584595}}</ref>
 
</onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
{{endnotes sources}}
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:John Dehlin]]
[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:John Dehlin]]

Latest revision as of 20:02, 19 February 2026


A case study in "ad hominem": An attempt to dismiss Rosalynde Welch because of who she is related to



For those of you who have found value in Mormon Stories....it would be awesome if you could let Rosalynde Welch hear about it. For the record—she's the daughter-in-law of Jack Welch....founder of FARMS, and chief sponsor of the Daniel Peterson/Lou Midgley apologetic reign at the Maxwell Institute that just ended somewhat unceremoniously...so I can understand the family pain/angst in all this. Rosalynde is a sharp cookie. Great person. I just think she's blinded by family loyalties on this one.

—John Dehlin, webmaster of Mormon Stories[1]

∗       ∗       ∗

John Dehlin's Ad Hominem Fallacy This is a textbook example of an ad hominem response. Specifically, this is the ad hominem circumstantial, in which one claims that one’s opponent makes a claim because she “is in circumstances such that [s]he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.”[2]

Now, it could be that Dehlin is right—it could be that Welch’s family associations bias her reading of the data. If family connections mean anything in assessing her argument, Welch’s father is on the board of the Miller-Eccles study group in California. This group has drawn upon a wide spectrum of Latter-day Saint and ex-Latter-day Saint voices, and can hardly be called “apologetic.”[3]

Such facts illustrate the perils of ad hominem: Dehlin ignores factors that could influence Welch in the opposite direction. To create a valid counter-argument, Dehlin must first demonstrate that the bias exists and that it significantly distorts how she presents data. He must then rebut her arguments with this bias corrected, not simply resort to ad hominem dismissal. If he can show that her biases have skewed how she presents or interprets data, then family connections or other ideological biases may explain why, and such analysis would not be guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.

In a variety of the same tactic, Dehlin elsewhere declares that much of Rosalynn Welch’s father-in-law’s life’s work has been judged a waste because of the actions of Latter-day Saint leaders.[4]

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ John Dehlin, post on Dehlin’s Facebook wall. The original has been removed; it is cited at Hamilton Porter, “Ya Gotta Love John Dehlin’s Reasoning,” post at mormondialogue, 2 July 2012 (8:45 AM).
  2. ↑ “Ad hominem: circumstantial,” Wikipedia (accessed 3 July 2012).
  3. ↑ See “Past Speakers (Page 1),” http://www.millereccles.org/?page_id=49 and “Past Speakers (Page 2),” http://www.millereccles.org/?page_id=379 (accessed 7 July 2012).
  4. ↑ John Dehlin, post on mormondiscussions.com, 8 May 2012 (7:54 AM), http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=584595#p584595
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Mormonism_and_apologetics/%22ad_hominem%22/Case_study/An_attempt_to_dismiss_Rosalynde_Welch_because_of_who_she_is_related_to&oldid=265520"