Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-20-2011, 04:15 AM

Hi avi,

Thanks for the many dictionary definitions and notes,
and for the following question .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Why do you not answer my questions?

Or, more appropriately, please do explain, J-D, how one can claim the quality of logical, when applied to an activity (walking on water, comes to mind) which is physically impossible.

I will be interested to see whether water-walking is classified as a logical fallacy by our resident Philosophical Logicians.

aa5874 · 07-20-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Whose words do you accept? I don't accept your words.

I don't recall asking you to accept my words. Why do you not answer my questions?

Because I DON'T ACCEPT your words.

You do NOT appear to be reasonable.

J-D · 07-20-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Whose words do you accept? I don't accept your words.

I don't recall asking you to accept my words. Why do you not answer my questions?

Because I DON'T ACCEPT your words.

You do NOT appear to be reasonable.

It appears to me that you do not answer my questions because you are not being reasonable.

J-D · 07-20-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Why do you not answer my questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D, post 43

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

HJ is a false dichotomy.

It's not a dichotomy at all, so it can't be a false dichotomy.

However, any argument which says
'Either everything in the New Testament is true or else everything in the New Testament is false
'Not everything in the New Testament is true
'Therefore, everything in the New Testament is false'
would be an example of the fallacy of false dichotomy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D, post 50

However, the claim that a human being imbued with the Holy Ghost can walk on water, although contrary to fact, is not contrary to logic. Although the claim is factually false, it is not logically fallacious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D, post 51

Presenting fiction as truth is a misrepresentation, but it's not a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi, post 57

By definition, an activity acknowledged to be impossible, lacks any attribute associated with logic....

Can you amputate the lower extremities of a man born without lower extremities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D, post 250

The term 'historical Jesus' is not a dichotomy at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D, post 252

The term 'Flat Earth' is not a dichotomy of any kind, and so not a false dichotomy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D, post 266

'False dichotomy' is one particular kind of logical fallacy, with a specific technical meaning,...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dichotomy
di·chot·o·my

1.
division into two parts, kinds, etc.; subdivision into halves or pairs.
2.
division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups: a dichotomy between thought and action.
3.
Botany . a mode of branching by constant forking, as in some stems, in veins of leaves, etc.

di·chot·o·my
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy

Definition of DICHOTOMY

1
: a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>
2
: the phase of the moon or an inferior planet in which half its disk appears illuminated
3
a : bifurcation; especially : repeated bifurcation (as of a plant's stem)
b : a system of branching in which the main axis forks repeatedly into two branches
c : branching of an ancestral line into two equal diverging branches
4
: something with seemingly contradictory qualities <it's a dichotomy, this opulent Ritz-style luxury in a place that fronts on a boat harbor — Jean T. Barrett>

Examples of DICHOTOMY

Her essay discusses the dichotomy between good and evil in the author's novels.
<her outfit is a sartorial dichotomy: an elegant gown and ratty old tennis shoes>
The amusing spectacle of the recent presidential vote in Florida should remind us of the persistence of the federal-state dichotomy. —Eugene Genovese, Atlantic, March 2001

Origin of DICHOTOMY

Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos (see dichotomous)
First Known Use: 1610

Definition of DICHOTOMOUS

1
: dividing into two parts
2
: relating to, involving, or proceeding from dichotomy

J-D:

1. Thank you for your participation in this thread. You have taught me a lot, and I appreciate it.

2. My question, above, remains unanswered. I fail to comprehend, notwithstanding your excellent labors, how it is possible for an activity, or action, which is impossible to perform (amputation of lower extremities on a person born without lower extremities) can still be viewed as logical.

I am repeating your point, here, again, in the hopes of learning your response:

Quote:

Why do you not answer my questions?

Or, more appropriately, please do explain, J-D, how one can claim the quality of logical, when applied to an activity (walking on water, comes to mind) which is physically impossible.

3. As this branch of the forum is concerned primarily with biblical fallacies, or claims thereof, please understand that for many of us, the Greek roots to a word are important, in my own case, to learn, but in the case of many forum participants, to use, as naturally as I use English.

Greek roots to an English word, in this case, dichotomy, suggest to me, the importance of remaining faithful to the understanding of the meaning of that word, in Greece, a couple thousand years ago. I don't claim to know that meaning, (i.e. how the word "dichotomy", or "dichotomous" was used 2000 years ago, nor, for that matter, even today. I rely upon dictionaries to inform me of such matters. However, not all forum participants are as uneducated as I am, and some of them, perhaps you yourself, are both literate in, and comfortable using Greek.

Since you have a different use for the same words, it will help us to better communicate if we both make an effort to understand the other's usage. I urge you to try and improve our faulty logic, by writing your explanations of why our formulations are incorrect, and then, rewriting the same IDEAS, in "proper" English, i.e. English which accords with your own definitions, since ours, or at least, mine, are viewed as inadequate. Can you please explain, whether or not the handful of dictionary provided illustrations comply with, or deviate from your own definition of dichotomy?

avi

1. I don't know what gives you the impression that I am using the word 'dichotomy' in a different way. I haven't posted anything which is incompatible with the dictionary definitions you refer to. I have said that the terms 'historical Jesus' and 'flat Earth' are not dichotomies: those terms do not fit the dictionary definitions you cite.

2. 'Logically impossible' and 'physically impossible' are not synonymous: something which is physically impossible may still be logically possible. The laws of physics are true statements, but it is not logical necessity which makes them so. It is physically impossible for a human being to walk on water, but it is not logically impossible. On the other hand, amputating lower extremities from somebody who does not have lower extremities is logically impossible.

3. If people write things which are unclear to me, it is not possible for me to rewrite their ideas more clearly with certainty. I can write something which is clearer to me and ask whether it correctly reflects their ideas, but if I knew for sure what their ideas were that would mean that what they wrote was clear to me. (Of course these things are relative.) In the specific case of the things aa5874 writes, past experience leads me to the conclusion that adopting such an approach would be counterproductive.

J-D · 07-20-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ theory is a logical fallacy.

If the HJ postulate is not supported by the evidence, then we need to find another postulate.

What definition of 'postulate' are you using?

Just the general everyday version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. That is to say, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

If a postulate is by definition something whose truth is taken for granted, then it is irrelevant whether it is supported by evidence or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you have a question you would like to see me answer, you could try asking it, if that's not too straightforward an approach for you.

OK. Supposing we investigate two postulates in the field of ancient history

1) Jesus was an historical figure (HJ Postulate), and

2) Jesus was not an historical figure (MJ Postulate).

Both postulates cannot be both be true. How do we test these competing hypotheses? Thanks J-D.

The first step would be to articulate the two postulates with greater specificity. As they stand they're too vague.

I disagree. The postulates are quite simple, but they are not in any sense vague. The former postulates Jesus had an historical existence as a man or god or a hobbit or in some manner, the latter postulates Jesus did not in any sense whatsoever have an historical existence.

Not specific enough partly because neither postulate specifies which Jesus is being referred to.

It has been customary when discussing the evidence in this forum that both postulates refer to the Jesus as described in the books of the New Testament.

Does that mean the two postulates you are referring to are to be interpreted as follows?
1. The accounts given in the books of the New Testament referring to a character called Jesus are historically accurate in every detail.
2. It is not the case that the accounts given in the books of the New Testament referring to a character called Jesus are historically accurate in every detail.
Because if those are the two postulates it's very easy to do a comparative evaluation.
IF.

No. Nothing like it. The subject of your statements needs to be Jesus, not the NT since the NT is only a fraction of the admissible available evidence.

I asked you which Jesus you were talking about. You referred to the descriptions given in the books of the New Testament and did not refer to any other evidence as being part of the definition of the Jesus you were talking about. It's impossible to do a comparative evaluation of the postulates if it's not clear what's part of the definition of the postulates and what isn't.

J-D · 07-20-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Obviously aa5874 can't be accepting all the scholars in your table as authoritative, since they have incompatible positions.

The table represents a spectrum of positions on the HJ and the non HJ (i.e. the MJ) which is idependent of aa5874, you, I and most of us in this forum. If you have been following aa5874, he is arguing that the HJ theory is a logical fallacy, and is therefore arguing against the spectrum of HJ positions (the 1st 3 positions in the table).

aa5874 has not confirmed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

See "historicity".

Where? And, much more importantly, why?

The H in HJ stands for "History", not Logic.

I wasn't asking about 'HJ'. I was asking what precisely Bart Ehrman means by the phrase 'not historically reliable'.

mountainman · 07-20-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We need a smilie for "point flies over head."

That would be a relativistic smilie. Who's point?

mountainman · 07-20-2011, 07:32 PM