Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cross Examiner · 05-11-2004, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

I would have to say yes. Why WOULDN'T it?

The presence of surface anomalies in x would warrant a default position with regards to x if the existence of such meets the criterion for having a default position. Does the existence of surface anomalies meet the criterion for having a default position?

Regards,
BGic

Sven · 05-12-2004, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch

Why do you assume this? It can't be a general principle -- at most it applies to books like introductory texts independently known to have been written by experts and to have passed peer/pedagogical review. For virtually any other kind of book, it seems more reasonable just to be prepared to consider and weigh whatever claims it makes. I've certainly read enough books that are overall incorrect.

The majority of books I read were overall correct. That's why I assume this.

Quote:

In any case, shouldn't we be talking about the responses appropriate to the discover of prima facie errors, rather than the appropriate attitudes before opening the book?

I just answered to the post of blt to go, who claimed that inerrancy is the default position.

And I think the attitude before opening the book influences how you handle prima facie errors. If you assume inerrancy beforehand, you are of course more inclined to find an harmonization than if you assume errancy.

Sven · 05-12-2004, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

Sven - I think we are on the same page (pun intended), but perhaps take two different routes to reach the same conclusion.
No, I am not surprised if I find an error in a book. To some extent, I would state that the more length, and the more complex a subject, the much more likley probability there will be an error.

You indeed reach the same conclusion: By conceding that there is a probability for errors, you assume errancy.

Cross Examiner · 05-13-2004, 11:05 AM

It is good to see that we can all finally come to an agreement. My faith in communication and the goodwill of men is restored.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch · 05-14-2004, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

Does the existence of surface anomalies meet the criterion for having a default position?

To modify an analogy from Bertrand Russell:

You open a crate of apples. Several of those on top are spotted, wrinkled, or have holes in them. Someone asks you whether that crate contains no bad apples. You reply:

A. No bad apples here! Heck, the crate says "Perfect Apple Co." right on the side!

B. Sorry, nobody's told me under what conditions I can move from the surface appearance of bad apples to the defeasible assumption of bad apples. I'm strictly neutral on the question.

C. Maybe I'm wrong about this -- maybe someone's genetically engineered some new and very expensive apples that are supposed to look like this -- but what I see here makes it pretty reasonable to think that there are some bad apples in this bunch. I mean, unless someone can prove that some other, more exotic, explanation should be accepted.

D. Woo-hoo, mushy apples! Let's make cider!

Fallon · 05-14-2004, 05:43 AM

It is nice to see everyone happy, wish I'd been around to pitch in. Anyone else find it ironic that the peanut gallery thread became more interesting (to me, at least) than the debate itself?

Except, possibly, in the "morbid curiosity" sort of interesting that is common among people who look at car wrecks and videos of people being beheaded.

Fallon

Cross Examiner · 05-20-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch

You open a crate of apples. Several of those on top are spotted, wrinkled, or have holes in them.

Please justify equating 'surface anomalies' with apples that are 'spotted', 'wrinkled', 'or have holes in them'.

Regards,
BGic

Vinnie · 05-20-2004, 08:16 AM

Q: What is the difference between Jesus and this thread?
A: When this thread dies, it doesn't stay dead!

:boohoo:

Cross Examiner · 05-20-2004, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Q: What is the difference between Jesus and this thread?
A: When this thread dies, it doesn't stay dead!

:boohoo:

A comic and a scholar? Will wonders never cease?

Clutch · 05-20-2004, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

Please justify equating 'surface anomalies' with apples that are 'spotted', 'wrinkled', 'or have holes in them'.

Regards,
BGic

Each is a matter of the defeasible appearance of flaws.

05-13-2004, 11:05 AM	#84
Cross Examiner Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 1,881	...and so things rap up nicely in 30 minutes, just like in the sitcoms It is good to see that we can all finally come to an agreement. My faith in communication and the goodwill of men is restored. Regards, BGic

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2004, 05:43 AM	#86
Fallon Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Can You Hear Me Now Posts: 110	It is nice to see everyone happy, wish I'd been around to pitch in. Anyone else find it ironic that the peanut gallery thread became more interesting (to me, at least) than the debate itself? Except, possibly, in the "morbid curiosity" sort of interesting that is common among people who look at car wrecks and videos of people being beheaded. Fallon

05-20-2004, 08:16 AM	#88
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Q: What is the difference between Jesus and this thread? A: When this thread dies, it doesn't stay dead! :boohoo:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.