Is this an example of something being Self Concealed or maybe motte and Bailey?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
1. If someone attends AA meetings and follows the 12 Step program, they will stay sober.
2. So how come allot of people who follow it and attend meetings sometimes relapse sometimes years later while still attending AA meetings? Or someone a few months of sobriety following it relapses? And what those people who don’t want to attend AA and want to go to therapy.
1. Well first I’m not saying “AA is for everybody”. People don't want it to work and don’t give it a chance. And if someone started Drinking then they aren’t following the 12 step program those people can’t blame the program for someone relapsing. And hey if therapy works for you good. But allot of people who go to therapy end up relapsing. Therapy might not be the solution
1. I agree even therapy might not be the solution but you seem to be saying if someone goes to therapy it might not work as therapy itself is not going to help you. but also saying if you go to AA it’s not that “it might not work” or that AA is not going to help you it’s that your not trying or following the rules.
2. “AA works if you want it to work”. People who start drinking again didn't want it to work. Therapy itself doesn’t also help people deal with their emotions.
Comments on Question
Answers
1Self-help and questionable treatments are often plagued with self-sealing argument (s). This is when something such as, "it works only if you are ready for it," or "it works only if your commitment is strong enough." The problem with this is, if it doesn't work for some reason associated with the ineffectiveness of the program/treatment, then the blame of failure is misplaced. In the realm of science, this is not the way to establish that the problem was with the person... it is an invalid metric for testing.
If you are also asking why AA works for some people, I would argue that the question is misleading (not your fault). It is not AA that "works," is the combination of the person who is ready to make the change and the program (mostly its ability to get the person ready to make the change). For example, AA could be completely ineffective for person X, but person X could be ready to make the change on their own. So 100% of the effect is coming from the person and 0% from the program. This is a extreme example for illustrative purposes. Usually there is some percentage that can be attributed to the program. This would require a rigorous scientific methodology to approximate that percentage.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
The numbers make your post very confusing; you should stick to 'person A, person B' format in the future.
However, I will note:
This is an unsupported claim. It could also be considered amazing familiarity as it suggests anyone who attends the meetings and follows the program will stay sober - how do we know that?
Sounds like a self-sealing argument. If someone completes the program and stays sober, chalk it up to the success of the program. If someone fails to stay sober, claim they "didn't want it to work" to avoid considering the uncomfortable possibility that maybe, just maybe, the program ain't perfect.
There is no way to bring evidence against the argument. It is 'insulated' from rebuttals.