(The short version: Read this first) Re: Debate Format
Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:24:58 -0600 (00919131898, 19990215142458.E4909@craie.inetnebr.com)
On Mon, Feb 15, 1999 at 07:18:32PM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:
> > Jeff Epler
> > Perhaps further discussion of the idea of "disproof", "negative
> > evidence", and "burden of proof" would be instructive, but I hope
> > that before we do that you will agree with my basic point, which I
> > will now repeat: You agree, as you wrote in an earlier message that
> > If the NT documents are trustworthy records then Mary, Joseph
> > etc have historical verification
> > and you must acknowledge that any line of reasoning that would cause
> > someone to deny that "Mary, Joseph etc have historical verification"
> > would entail the denial that "the NT documents are trustworthy
> > records".
>
> Matthew Bell
> I don't quite follow your line of reasoning here. Mary (to limit to
> one person to save repeating 'Joseph etc'), is cited as a real person
> in an ancient document which is one of the best attested of its day.
> The information provided in that document is sparse as she is not a
> central person in the same, so how can that sparse information be used
> to judge the validity of the whole document? That one could deny what
> is attributed to this Mary, i.e. a virgin birth I can understand,
> but not that this could be used as a conclusive argument that she
> never existed, nor the document which speaks of her is false.
Do you accept that this is a valid argument:
1. If A then B
2. Not B
3. Therefore, Not A (1,2)
Yes? No? (Hint, all students of logic do. It's called modus tollens and
you've heard the likes of Elf talk about it before)
Do you accept the statement that you get when you let A="the NT documents
are trustworthy records" and B="Mary, Joseph etc have historical
verification"?
Yes? No? (Hint, that statement is one you've already made, so I hope you
accept it)
If you accept both of those then you must see that if "Mary, Joseph etc
do not have historical verification" entails "Therefore, the NT documents
are not trustworthy records". You just plug it all in to an argument
you already agreed was valid, and that's what you get as a result.
Of course, we're debating with B="the virgin birth story is true" or
something similar, but you get the idea. I keep returning to the example
which you stated yourself, because it's available and the choice of
words was yours and not mine.
Jeff
--
\/ http://www.slashdot.org/ Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Graduate life: It's not just a job. It's an indenture.