tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post6370632568929249818..comments2023-11-08T12:09:20.020-05:00Comments on Prove Me Wrong: ConfidenceJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1899606766246433608.post-75009532029496501182009-03-19T11:40:00.000-04:002009-03-19T11:40:00.000-04:00Jason's latest, being trivial, is going to be rele...Jason's <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/03/possibility-probability-and-certainty.html" REL="nofollow">latest</A>, being trivial, is going to be relegated to the comments section. The tit for tat polemics is not worth clogging people's feeds.<BR/><BR/>Jason seems to be having reading comprehension problems. I have yet to catch up on many of his other misreads of my arguments and he's already offered many more.<BR/><BR/><I>The length of a thread doesn't tell us whether Jon interacted with a particular argument on a particular subject discussed within that thread.</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say it did.<BR/><BR/><I>The fact that the thread is 95 pages long doesn't make it inappropriate for me to point out that Jon didn't interact with, and still isn't interacting with, what I last wrote in response to him on the subject of Romans 11.</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say it was.<BR/><BR/><I>And if you search the rest of the thread for terms like "probably" and "probability", you'll see that I made similar comments many other times.</I><BR/><BR/>You can be certain of things and still regard your views as probable. I'm certain the Holocaust ocurred, but this doesn't mean there isn't some measure of probability. It's not an either/or.<BR/><BR/><I>What I've argued (not just asserted) is that my view of the passage is probable, and I've argued (not just asserted) that Jon hasn't given us any reason to think that his view is probable.</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say otherwise. I said you should spend <I>more</I> time arguing and <I>less</I> time asserting. This means you're already doing some arguing.<BR/><BR/><I>For Jon to act as if I was suggesting certainty for my view, and was denying that his view is possible, is unreasonable in light of the comments I made about probability in that thread and have made in many other contexts.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not an either/or.<BR/><BR/><I>But the issue is probability, not possibility.</I><BR/><BR/>Who has denied that?<BR/><BR/><I>The length of that thread doesn't prove that Jon has sufficiently addressed the issues discussed there.</I><BR/><BR/>Who said it does?<BR/><BR/>Who are you arguing with?<BR/><BR/>Once again, <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=4fwQAAAAIAAJ&ots=Vs0UsrpkXh&dq=george%20salmon%20infallibility%20of%20the%20church&psp=1&pg=PA63&ci=58,872,784,268&source=bookclip" REL="nofollow">George Salmon</A>.<BR/><BR/>It is a common rhetorical artifice with a man who has to commend a false conclusion deduced from a syllogism of which one premiss is true and the other false to spend an immensity of time in proving the premiss which nobody denies. If he devotes a sufficient amount of argument and declamation to this topic the chances are that his hearers will never ask for the proof of the other premiss.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com