InvoSpec

by Hiram R. Diaz III
[Continued from Pts. 1 & 2] 
Under the cover of fighting “fake news,” Facebook is currently attempting to mute views on the COVID-19 “crisis” that are not in lockstep with the popular narrative. Many people understand that the “independent” “fact checkers” are anything but independent,1 and do not actually refute the claims made by many of the posts they mark as containing “false” information. But what isn’t usually discussed, as far as I can tell at least, is their justification for their judgments. 
Here is what usually happens. An article claims that some person or organization has said something about COVID-19, or any of its many tentacles. The article’s claim takes the following form –  Bill Gates says x about COVID-19 treatments. The article is labeled as “false” because it asserts that Bill Gates has said x, when a perusal of Gates’ words does not record him as having explicitly stating x. Rather than treating the asse…

by Hiram R. Diaz III
In part 1 of this series, we looked at how some articles utilize “headlinese” in order to get readers to do the dirty work of committing logical fallacies. The reader, once having committed the logical fallacies, would likely accept the conclusions of their invalid inferences, acting in accordance with their false conclusions. In this article, we will be looking at how some publications use the red herring and category error fallacies to support their narrative and, simultaneously, draw attention away from the truth. The philosophy department of Texas State University defines the fallacy as follows –
“This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first.”1
While valiant attempts were made by “alternative” media outlets (e.g. Project Veritas, Infowars, The Corbett Report), as well as independent …

by Hiram R. Diaz III
In a time of great distress, the worst thing we can do is act impulsively. Yet that seems to be the very thing we typically do. Rather than calming down, praying, and thinking through whatever issue it is we are facing, we resort to doing what feels right. This is more than irrational and unwise, it is sinful. For if we are emotionally impulsive, subjecting rationality to our feelings rather than subjecting our feelings to the truth/reason, then we are not exercising self-control, and that is evil.1 Moreover, while we are not emotionless fleshly robots, we also aren’t a-rational animals who are not morally culpable for acting out of pure instinct. We are the image of the living God, whose very word (logos/reason/rational revelation2) is life.3 It’s incumbent upon us, therefore, to think first and emote later, and in a manner corresponding to the truth. 
We fail to do this when we don’t think through the ways i…

Biblical Trinitarian: Yehoshu'a and Yeshu'a: Christ in the Book of Numbe...: by Hiram R. Diaz III I.Introduction: Joshua and the New Generation of Israelites In the book of Numbers, there are numerous typ...

by Gordon H. Clark
[Given the current idolization of science, even by some professing Christians, I thought this article by the late Presbyterian philosopher Gordon H. Clark would be a helpful corrective. You can find the original here.]
Centuries ago it may have been possible to ignore science-in fact centuries ago there was little science to ignore-but today its successes are so phenomenal that it is usually accorded the last word in all disputes. The younger generation can hardly realize that so simple a thing as the incandescent electric bulb came only yesterday. Today science receives its praise and respect by reason of the atomic bomb, bacteriological warfare, and the possibility of interplanetary travel. None of this may be desirable, but truth is not a matter of desire; and the methods that have produced these wonderful products of civilization are capable of answering every question.
T. H. Huxley asserted that the foundation of morality is to renounce lying and give up pretendi…