SPIRITOLOGY® Power Persuasion

Spiritology teaches a course in Power Persuasion. However, in order to resolve disputes within Spiritology, these guidelines are given.

The facts should be established to the highest degree of certainty and listed.

All applicable definitions should be listed.

All Applicable strategies, axioms, and principles should be listed.

All agreements and history should be listed.

All rules, regulations, constitutional articles and constitutional principles should be listed.

The value of any loss, gain, or profit should be established. Priotities should be set. Estimates of the time needed to resolve the conflict should be made.

Comparisons should be made and relative values of certainty or importances should be assigned. Associations, inferences, conclusions, extrapolations, and connections of fact to principle, rule, right should be made with proper logic. Mountains should not be made of molehils nor should molehills be made of mountains; this would be suppressive.

Differentiations, inferences, conclusions, extrapolations, and dissimilarities of fact to principle, rule, right should be made with proper logic.

Any decision does not have to be black and white. Decisions don’t have to be made that clearly favor or disfavor one side or the other. Rules are meant to be just and fair. Rules are meant firstly to protect the rights of the individual and secondly to protect the rights of the group or well being of all members.

Particular attention must be made to avoiding the following suppressive fallacies:

Fallacy of Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false

Fallacy of appealing to pity, sympathy, or prejudicial language in Place of Support

Fallacy of the Ad hominem attack: the person's character is attacked to distract attention from the argument.

Fallacy of the appeal to a false Authority: the authority is not an expert in the field

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population

Fallacy of False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

Fallacy of Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other

Fallacy of Insignificance: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect

Fallacy of Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

Fallacy of Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings

Fallacy of Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations

Fallacy of Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property

Fallacy of Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property

Fallacy of Non Sequitur logic: If A then B, B, therefore A

Fallacy of denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B

Fallacy of the Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)