05 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI said that already idiot - thats the definition of an abuse ad hominem I gave earlier, and it's the same definition of abuse ad hominem from http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php you pasted earlier. What a moron!
You may parrot the same drivel over and over again, but you are still wrong. There are NO circumstances where an argument directed at the person themselves i.e. ad hominem rather than their argument is not a fallacious argument. The characteristics of the person making the argument is totally irrelevant to the argument itself. If you knew anything about real logic rather than Humpty Dumpty-Coletti logic, you would know this.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrActually, I'm not sure my argument was inductive. Valid deductive arguments can be made about definitions. Here Coletti claimed an ad hominem argument is an attack on a person's views and ideas; I showed that the definition of an ad hominem is not an attack on a person's views or ideas, so Coletti's definition was wrong and my argument is actually a valid deductive one. If Coletti had said that a chair is a magical creature that breathes fire and I showed that that is an incorrect definition of a chair, then I have made a valid deductive argument. It is simply absurd to argue that you can change the definition of any word whenever you feel like it to avoid being wrong about a definition. Such "logic" may work in a lunatic asylum, but not in the rest of the world.
First, I'm not sure what you mean by 'absolute statement'. Do you mean a statement that, when symbolized in first-order logic, would begin with a universal quantifier?
Second, it is often the case that a beliefs of one's is justified solely on the testimony of others. If my wife were to call me and tell me she was going to be late for dinner, then tha ...[text shortened]... t this doesn't mean there are no constraints on the acceptability of an offered definition.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiYou keep saying that some ad hominem arguments aren't fallacious when they ALL are! Make up your mind, jerkwad.
I said that already idiot - thats the definition of an abuse ad hominem I gave earlier, and it's the same definition of abuse ad hominem from http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php you pasted earlier. What a moron!
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThat proves it! You need a class in LOGIC 101.
Actually, I'm not sure my argument was inductive. Valid deductive arguments can be made about definitions. Here Coletti claimed an ad hominem argument is an attack on a person's views and ideas; I showed that the definition of an ad hominem is not an attack on a person's views or ideas, so Coletti's definition was wrong and my argument is ac ...[text shortened]... out a definition. Such "logic" may work in a lunatic asylum, but not in the rest of the world.
A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion NECESSARILY follows from the premise. A definition never follows necessarily from the the premise (the word of term defined) unless it is tautological. In which case, it is not a useful definition as it does not provide any new information about the term it defines.
For instance: a dog is a canine - is tautologically true definition. But unless you know what something more about what a canine is, the definition itself does not help.
If any phrase or word that has multiple definitions, especially if the definitions can not all be all true at the same time, then giving any one definition itself does not prove that another is false. Therfore this is not a deductive argument.
In order to justify one definition over another, one must argue the merits of the definition and show that one is less helpful then the other. This can only be shown inductively - and inductive arguments are not proofs, they merely support.
So you have not only provided a fallacious deductive argument, it was a crappy inductive one as well.
05 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiSorry, stupid: from the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy:
That proves it! You need a class in LOGIC 101.
A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion NECESSARILY follows from the premise. A definition never follows necessarily from the the premise (the word of term defined) unless it ...[text shortened]... ous deductive argument, it was a crappy inductive one as well.
For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic.
Notice the word DEFINITIONS. Now I'm sure you will argue that your definition of what a deductive argument is just as valid as the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy but that's just more Humpty Dumpty - Coletti "logic", not the real kind. I'd say you've managed to make a complete fool of yourself so far, but I'm sure you will keep digging deeper in your delusional hole. Have fun, numbnuts.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou have no mind to change; all ad hominem arguments are fallacious by the definition of ad hominem and fallacious (both of which you apparently don't know). Buy a real dictionary and you won't have to go through the trouble of making up your own definition for every word in the English (and other) languages.
Make up my mind?? Make a good argument. I have not changed my mind.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiHuh? Everything I posted above about arguments based on appeal to authority in particular, or appeal to testimony generally, was concerned with getting at the truth and not merely achieving confident belief. The whole point of my posts above was to get you to realize that often it is the case that the testimony of others, especially of authorities concerning their fields of expertise, provides good reason for belief. When my wife says she will be home late, or when Einstein claims that e=mc^2, their testimony gives us good reason to believe that it is true that, respectively, she will be home late and that e=mc^2. My wife is an authority when it comes to her whereabouts and Einstein an authority on physics. When an authority on some subject matter makes a claim concerning that subject matter, they are likely to be correct. That is, their claims are likely to be true. Because their claims are likely to be true, we are justified in believing them.
I think you should recall your definition of truth, and not just belief. When making an argument, we are not shooting for just what we feel certain about - we want to argue for truth. And the best way is by valid deductive arguments.
Take the proposition: "she will be late (for dinner)." I'll go so far as to say I don't think you could believe that ...[text shortened]... onclusion is true based solely on the arguments he gave, then that person is irrational.
Of course certain conditions must be met for us to be justified in believing the claims of authorities, even when they are making claims concerning their areas of expertise. For instance, we need good reason to think that they are not lying to us, that they are in possession of their faculties, and so on. These conditions are listed above in frogstomp's nice post.
Strictly speaking, you are correct that the best way to truth is via valid deductive arguments, at least when those arguments proceed from premises that are true. The problem, of course, is that utilizing only self-evident premises doesn't get us many interesting conclusions outside of logic and mathematics. Unfortunately, there are very few self-evident propositions outside of logic and mathmatics. The set of self-evident premises consists, by and large, of logically necessary truths (truths that would hold in any possible world; truths such that their denial entails a contradiction) like "everything is identical with itself", "2+2=4", "no proposition can be both true and false", etc. In our everyday affairs we are much more often interested in contingent truths (truths that do not hold in any possible world; truths such that their denial does not entail a contradiction) like "the car is almost out of gas", "it is raining outside", "Jesus claimed he was not God", etc. When we are interested in finding out contingent truths such as these; when we want to have true beliefs about the empirical world, then we will often have to reason deductively from premises that are only likely to be true (not self-evident), and we will often have to reason inductively from past experiences, and we will often have to reason abductively to the best explanation for the available evidence.
You are simply mistaken that it is contradictory to believe that something is both true and possibly false. Suppose someone buys me a lottery ticket as a gift, and the chances of my winning are 1 in a billion. It is perfectly rational for me to believe that I will not win. Given that my chances are 1 in a billion, it would be irrational to believe otherwise. But, since I still have a very slim chance of winning, it is the case that it is possible for me to win. But if it is possible for me to win, then it is possible that my belief that I will not win is false. So, it is perfectly rational for me to believe both that it is possible that I will win, but that I will not, in fact, win. This is even clearer when we are dealing with really far out logical possibilities. I do not believe that there is an invisible gnome in my refrigerator, but it is logically possible that there is an invisible gnome in my refrigerator. So, although it is perfectly rational to believe that there is no such creature in my fridge, it is also perfectly rational to believe that it is possible that there is such a creature and, hence, that my belief that there is no such creature is false. What would be irrational is for somebody to believe that P while failing to believe that it is possible that not-P in those cases where it really is possible that not-P.
All your crow example shows is that sometimes our inductive generalizations may be false. So what? We know this already. The beauty of inductive generalizations is they are often correct when based on good prior evidence.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSimply repeating your "millions of documents ... thousands of years" line isn't going to help.
Again you utterly failed to show that the principles that the legal system uses to interpret millions of documents and has used for thousands of years are not relevant to interpret the Bible, which is after all a document. Sinc ...[text shortened]... have given shouldn't be applicable to Scriptural interpretation.
And I've provided a number of arguments as to why American legal interpretive principles are not authoritative in this context:
1. Legal principles of textual interpretation are primarily designed for legal documents. I suspect that the Pennsylvania court ruling you've cited refers to a legal document. The Gospels are not legal documents.
Legal documents are drafted such that each clause/provision is as clear and self-sufficient as possible. The Gospels are not. Hence your principle of "look beyond the immediate words if and only if they do not have a clear meaning" would be applicable to legal documents, but not works of literature (such as the Gospels). That is why Biblical exegetes and literary critics try to look at the context and spirit of the whole document when interpreting particular sections.
2. Legal interpretive principles are designed for use with contemporary documents in the vernacular. Where they might be used with historical documents in a historical language, these are usually legal documents (so Cicero's cases may be relevant). The Gospels are both non-contemporary and written in a historical language, not to mention non-legal. A judge who tries to look at the "plain meaning" of a verse in Scripture would not usually be competent to determine if the said meaning would be as plain in the original Greek/Hebrew to the original audience (a community of believers in the 2nd century Christian world).
3. You have stated, but not provided any evidence for, the assertion that this particular principle (look beyond the words if and only if etc.) is a widely held principle even in the global legal community. All you've established is that American courts hold to it. That might make it superior in your view; it doesn't to me.
EDIT: So stop your "head in the sand" response of "You haven't made a single argument yadda yadda yadda". I've listed out a few objections here - you need to show why these are incorrect/inapplicable.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. Is nonsense. So what if the Gospels are not legal documents; the principles of interpretation of legal documents is to ascertain the intent of the writers of the documents. The interpreter of the Gospels is attempting to do the same thing. You've given a distinction, but not a difference.
Simply repeating your "millions of documents ... thousands of years" line isn't going to help.
And I've provided a number of arguments as to why American legal interpretive principles are not authoritative in this context:
...[text shortened]... ions here - you need to show why these are incorrect/inapplicable.
The Gospels are a narrative of what Jesus did and said. It's absurd to assert that he didn't try to make his words and deeds as "clear and self-sufficient" as possible. Even a cursory glance at the Gospels reveals that he was trying to impart his teachings in a clear manner. Why should the interpretation of his words assume he was trying to be unclear? What possible sense would it make for Jesus to be vague?
The Bible itself is not really a "whole" document; it is a collection of writings by many different authors. Thus, at most, context could be viewed inside each Gospel but that's about it. Christian biblical scholars look at the Gospels with pre-conceived notions and try to torture the words into them as you and Coletti do. A person with no preconceived notions would be a far better interpreter of the Gospels.
2. This is basically a claim that no one can interprete the Bible unless they read it in its original language. If so, I wish all the religious people on this site would stop quoting it in English as you are "not competent" to determine its "said meaning"!
If the translations are adequate, then it can be interpretated without resort to the original language. Your argument proves too much: if taken seriously you are asserting that virtually no one can interpret the Bible at all.
3. I'll tell you what; I'm not going to research the court decisions of every country in the world to find what I already know from 1st year Contracts. You name a country and I will find their interpretative principles regarding legal documents and statutes. Any country will do; though this might require me to go to a law library I'll do it to shut you up on this point since you are basically asserting that I am a liar.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
1. Is nonsense. So what if the Gospels are not legal documents; the principles of interpretation of legal documents is to ascertain the intent of the writers of the documents. The interpreter of the Gospels is attempting to do the same thing. You've given a distinction, but not a difference.
The intent might be the same, but the operating principles would be tailored to the type and style of document in question. The intent behind examining a section of the Bible, an amendment in the US Constitution or an article in the Journal of High Energy Physics might be the same - but the heuristics applied would vary depending on the type of document. You have failed to demonstrate that the specific principles of legal interpretation are valid as general principles of textual interpretation or even specific principles of interpretation of historical documents.
The Gospels are a narrative of what Jesus did and said. It's absurd to assert that he didn't try to make his words and deeds as "clear and self-sufficient" as possible. Even a cursory glance at the Gospels reveals that he was trying to impart his teachings in a clear manner. Why should the interpretation of his words assume he was trying to be unclear? What possible sense would it make for Jesus to be vague?
Actually, if you read through the Gospels you will see several instances where Jesus was vague or oblique. The incident of the adultress is one such instance.
2. This is basically a claim that no one can interprete the Bible unless they read it in its original language. ... If the translations are adequate, then it can be interpretated without resort to the original language.
That is why I always look to the traditional interpretations of passages to corroborate my own individual interpretation - because these are interpretations of scholars who do know the original language and, in some cases, actually date back to the time and place as the original audience. That is why I always look to the Latin text in official Church documents. Because I accept that, even when a translation looks adequate, it might not be.
3. I'll tell you what; I'm not going to research the court decisions of every country in the world to find what I already know from 1st year Contracts. You name a country and I will find their interpretative principles regarding legal documents and statutes. Any country will do; though this might require me to go to a law library I'll do it to shut you up on this point since you are basically asserting that I am a liar.
Stop taking things personally. I was not (basically or otherwise) asserting that you were a liar. You might be saying the truth, or you might believe you're saying the truth. You have to show the facts. Besides, there would be no point in you running off to the library unless you can first demonstrate that legal heuristics are applicable to historical texts. But, if you do insist on running off to the library, could you check up on the UK and India for me?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI was unclear. I was referring to your argument that we ought to apply a principle of parsimony when interpreting passages in scripture. That argument is certainly inductive, at least in part. The proposals you've made concerning how documents in general ought to be interpreted will all themselves by justified, at least in part, inductively.
Actually, I'm not sure my argument was inductive. Valid deductive arguments can be made about definitions. Here Coletti claimed an ad hominem argument is an attack on a person's views and ideas; I showed that the definition of an ad hominem is not an attack on a person's views or ideas, so Coletti's definition was wrong and my argument is ac ...[text shortened]... out a definition. Such "logic" may work in a lunatic asylum, but not in the rest of the world.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. Look, you and others constantly fail to ascertain the difference between a deductive and inductive argument. I cannot "demonstrate" i.e. logically prove that the principles behind the interpretation of legal documents are just as applicable in interpreting Scripture; I can only make arguments supporting the idea that they should be. I have used logical reasons and marshalled facts to support this conclusion. You have, for the most part, merely made broad assertions without any supporting facts. If you would stop concentrating on my acknowledged inability to "demonstrate" the truth of an inductive argument (an impossibility) and concentrate instead on WHY you believe my conclusion is wrong, we could have a debate instead of talking at cross-purposes.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]1. Is nonsense. So what if the Gospels are not legal documents; the principles of interpretation of legal documents is to ascertain the intent of the writers of the documents. The interpret ...[text shortened]... off to the library, could you check up on the UK and India for me?
I don't believe Jesus was unclear in the case of the adultress at all, but I do believe his words were serving a dual purpose. The words "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" was instructing the crowd that they should look at themselves before condemning others. This was a far more effective technique then him simply saying "Don't stone her" because it imparted a moral lesson as well as
leading to an immediate desired result. There was nothing vague or oblique about it; the crowd immediately understood exactly what he was saying (as did the Rich Young Man in the other passage since he stopped calling him "good"😉.
I have no answer to the language issue; I don't speak Greek or Hebrew so you are basically saying I'll have to take the words of others on how to interpret the Bible. Since I am unwilling to abdicate my reasoning facilities in such a manner, this leads to an impasse. I note you have not applied similar rules to Coletti, who I'm sure can't read Greek or Hebrew (it seems he can barely read English) either. If the English translations of the Bible are useless for intrepretative purposes, then the whole discussion of how to interpret it by English speakers is a waste of time. Is this your assertion?
I would prefer not to waste my time; if it is irrelevant to you what the legal principles of interpretation are since you believe, in any case, that they are inapplicable to Scriptural interpretation then my proving that they have been adopted in all countries or 20 or 5 countries wouldn't matter at all to the argument. Forcing someone to do rather difficult research to sdupport a point that you consider irrelevant is pretty poor form in a debate. If I did not think a point affected the "nub" of the argument, I would be willing to concede it for the sake of argument. The legal term is "en arguendo". I'll make a deal: I'll stop mentioning the "millions of documents and thousands of years" if you'll stop disputing that the legal interpretation principles I am using are not universal, at least until it matters in the argument. What say you?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrI concur.
I was unclear. I was referring to your argument that we ought to apply a principle of parsimony when interpreting passages in scripture. That argument is certainly inductive, at least in part. The proposals you've made concerning how documents in general ought to be interpreted will all themselves by justified, at least in part, inductively.