FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-07-2001, 12:12 AM   #51
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nomad, I think you are getting my point here, and I think I am getting yours.

As far as critiquing work is concerned, stick to what was said and what evidence was offered. When it comes to choosing which work you want to delve into next or recommend, the credibility of the author comes into question.

Does that sound right? I am trying to steer this (already dying) discussion away from character assassination and more towards the meat of the work. I know you aren't trying to say that no meaningful statement can be made by an amateur or non-specialist. But, when making the type of ad hominem fallacy that was brought up earlier, a casual observer or "newbie" might not see that for what it is.

IOW:

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And no, he was quite wrong, and no, he had no real evidence, and yes, he has been largely discarded from the lexicon of acceptable scholars in the field. IOW, no one that wants to be treated seriously quotes him any longer, since they know he has been so thoroughly debunked.</font>
Bringing up the fact that he is a German teacher is not germaine to the argument (pun intended). If he's been debunked, it wasn't because he was a German teacher! It was because he had his head up his butt! (Something my wife would never say, BTW)

Just trying to keep everything honest!

P.S. Not only is my wife much better looking than I deserve, she is tons smarter than me. The problem is, she is a bad typist, so the differences in our posts should be immediately obvious! And I will send her your greeting.
 
Old 03-08-2001, 10:23 AM   #52
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Glory:
The language of "attacking the man and not the argument" is one commonly used in texts describing the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Of course you weren't attacking Wells, rather penatis. However, I just used the language I was used to hearing. Instead of "attack," I probably should have used "discredit," or something similar, and you wouldn't've mistaken my intentions.




I agree with you. Hopefully, the posters now realize that all of us should evaluate the commentary and its related evidentiary support rather than the scholars and posters themselves.

BTW, penatis has informed me he will no longer be posting on the Internet Infidel's Discussion Forum.

rodahi
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:09 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.