Name that logical fallacy

[Mike Hall]

I've just listened to the latest SGU 5x5 podcast, where they play 'name that logical fallacy'. The situation is this:

Eleven-year-old Karen Newman died from untreated diabetes, after her parents attempted to heal her using only prayer. The faith-healing group to which her parents belonged made the following statement...

"If you persecute faith healers when their patients die, you must persecute doctors for every patient of theirs that dies".

For those who haven't listened/don't listen to the podcast, I'd be interested to hear what people think is wrong with that statement.

Mike

[Matt]

I've just listened to the latest SGU 5x5 podcast, where they play 'name that logical fallacy'. The situation is this:

Eleven-year-old Karen Newman died from untreated diabetes, after her parents attempted to heal her using only prayer. The faith-healing group to which her parents belonged made the following statement... For those who haven't listened/don't listen to the podcast, I'd be interested to hear what people think is wrong with that statement.

Mike

Well I haven't listened to the podcast but my view is this.

There is indeed an argument that doctors and faith healers should be held to the same standard. I suggest that they are.

When doctors fail, they are investigated. If negligence is found they should be censured. When faith healers fail they should also be investigated and if negligence is found they too should be censured.

It's not the tragic result that should lead to persecution it's culpability. Sometimes when doctors fail they are found to be culpable and they are persecuted. Sometimes it's just bad luck and no-one gets persecuted.

The statement in question seesm to imply that in all cases the result is just bad luck and no-one is to blame. That as the result of inexplicable redjudice faith healers are consistantly persecuted whilst doctors never are. This simply doesn't square with the evidence of doctors being censured and many faith healers living it up on the profits of an unregulated industry.

If there is more critcism levelled at faith healers than Doctors then perhaps that is because the evidence shows that they are more consistently culpable for their failures.

[Admin]

I've just listened to the latest SGU 5x5 podcast, where they play 'name that logical fallacy'. The situation is this:

Eleven-year-old Karen Newman died from untreated diabetes, after her parents attempted to heal her using only prayer. The faith-healing group to which her parents belonged made the following statement...

"If you persecute faith healers when their patients die, you must persecute doctors for every patient of theirs that dies".

For those who haven't listened/don't listen to the podcast, I'd be interested to hear what people think is wrong with that statement.

Mike

There's often more than one fallacy that can be spotted in arguments. I haven't heard the podcast btw.

My first impression is that there's a false analogy in there: the idea that because faith healers and doctors have the same intention that they are equivalent.

So I'll chuck false analogy into the ring and suggest it's the starting point for other fallacies to follow on from.

[Mike Hall]

If negligence is found they should be censured. When faith healers fail they should also be investigated and if negligence is found they too should be censured.

Have the faith healers been negligent when they have diligently prayed?

[Mongrel]

Have the faith healers been negligent when they have diligently prayed?

Have to go with yes. Doctors treatments are based on published evidence of efficacy. Can you imagine the fuss if a doctor, with the best intent, had injured a patient because they used an old, disproven treatment?

[Dr B]

I think John beat me to it .....

[dalriada]

If faith healing doesn't work, instead of blaming the faith healer isn't there always option A :Blaming the patient for "not having enough faith" or option B: Blaming God?

Sounds a lot more noble than child neglect..incidentally if a church is promoting and supporting this kind of thing would there be a potential case for corporate manslaughter?

[Mike Hall]

if a church is promoting and supporting this kind of thing would there be a potential case for corporate manslaughter?

Well you may think that - but AIUI the US courts recently ruled that things like this are covered by the separation of church and state. The case in question was that of a women who was attacked by several members of her church congregation who believed she was possessed. They then proceeded to hold her down and 'exorcise' her, despite her demands to be released.

She was initially awarded damages to cover emotional distress, but on appeal the courts ruled that it was a religious issue and therefore (under the first amendment) the government is unable to involve itself.

I'll see if I can look out some references.

[Mike Hall]

Here is the ruling, if anyone is interested: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.u...jun/050916.htm

[brodski]

Well you may think that - but AIUI the US courts recently ruled that things like this are covered by the separation of church and state. The case in question was that of a women who was attacked by several members of her church congregation who believed she was possessed. They then proceeded to hold her down and 'exorcise' her, despite her demands to be released.

She was initially awarded damages to cover emotional distress, but on appeal the courts ruled that it was a religious issue and therefore (under the first amendment) the government is unable to involve itself.

I'll see if I can look out some references.

But manslaughter is about physical injury nothing in the Texas supreme court's ruling ( state and not federal body, and so ahs no real bearing on other state’s courts) indicated that 1st amendment protection applies to a church inflicting physical injury indeed the church never claimed such a privilege.

However the original case focused on the emotional aspect of harm, rather than the more minor physical aspects (indeed no medical evidence of physical harm was presented at the original hearing).

The line is pretty clearly drawn here- physical harm has no 1st amendment protection, emotional harm does- manslaughter would not be protected.

[Mike Hall]

The line is pretty clearly drawn here- physical harm has no 1st amendment protection, emotional harm does- manslaughter would not be protected.

Yes, absolutely right. Completely forgot about that part!

[Mulder]

"Name that logical fallacy". I don't think even Channel 4 would run that as a quiz show ...