Who wrote the Gospels?

[Guest]

Right, I only 'said so' because you say so. We could play that game all day; but you are uncharitable and continuing this conversation is waste of time unless you actually bring something to the table. You are obviously not serious, or equipped, to dialogue with me on this matter.

I am questioning the authority upon which you are basing your arguments. Though, if you require appeals to authority to make your argument, then you're right. I am no match for you. I prefer to actually make my arguments for myself.

 

[Guest]

he word of scholars is meaningless, I suppose, when they don't coincide with your beliefs, although I'm certain you would not scruple to cite any in your favor.

Really? What exactly are my beliefs on this issue? I don't quite recall stating them. Though, I do have quite a track record here of addressing arguments whether I agree or disagree with them.

 

[wavy]

I am questioning the authority upon which you are basing your arguments. Though, if you require appeals to authority to make your argument, then you're right. I am no match for you. I prefer to actually make my arguments for myself.

Your 'questioning' is thus far unwarranted and therefore irrational. You have to give a reason why the authorities should be doubted other than the fact that you don't want their deliverances to be true. People cite authorities on matters where us lesser or uninitiated folk aren't qualified.

Until you give me an actual reason why my authorities should be dismissed, then you have no legitimate 'argument' to make for yourself, and as I indicated, this reeks of hypocrisy. No doubt you wouldn't have a problem if the authorities in question agreed with you.

Anything else?

Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Really? What exactly are my beliefs on this issue? I don't quite recall stating them. Though, I do have quite a track record here of addressing arguments whether I agree or disagree with them.

Not interested in your track record. The point is, there's nothing wrong with my methods. They are epistemically sound. So either you are incognizant of this fact, disagree with my view, or just have a pointless penchant for 'addressing' sound arguments that you don't even disagree with!

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

Until you give me an actual reason why my authorities should be dismissed, then you have no legitimate 'argument' to make for yourself, and as I indicated, this reeks of hypocrisy.

This is called shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Guest]

Not interested in your track record. The point is, there's nothing wrong with my methods. They are epistemically sound. So either you are incognizant of this fact, disagree with my view, or just have a pointless penchant for 'addressing' sound arguments that you don't even disagree with!

Bludgeoning people with scholarship is epistemically sound? You see, the reason I dove into this thread was because I was tired of you making appeals to authority and then beating others over the head with this authority. (See your exchange with Free.) I have no issues with scholarship. I have issues with people who use it to establish their superiority over others.

 

[wavy]

This is called shifting the burden of proof.

No, it's called reason. Unless there's something fallacious about me quoting authorities to support a view your exercises here are meaningless. I was not aware citing authorities was a problem, nor was I aware that you could call authorities into question and then pretend that you don't have to give a reason why other than the questioning itself.

So I ask you: what's the problem with me citing authorities, why do you 'question' them if your agreeing or disagreeing with them is irrelevant, and if there is no problem, then are you just posting irrelevant nonsense for no reason?

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

This is called shifting the burden of proof.

No, it's called reason. Unless there's something fallacious about me quoting authorities to support a view your exercises here are meaningless. I was not aware citing authorities was a problem, nor was I aware that you could call authorities into question and then pretend that you don't have to give a reason why other than the questioning itself.

Reason? It's actually the counter of reason. You have claimed they are authorities and others should trust their perspective. However, you have provided no reasons as to why. And, rather than provide reasons, you decided to pretend its my responsibility to show why we shouldn't? That is a textbook case of shifting the burden of proof.

So I ask you: what's the problem with me citing authorities, why do you 'question' them if your agreeing or disagreeing with them is irrelevant, and if there is no problem, then are you just posting irrelevant nonsense for no reason?

See my other post.

 

[wavy]

Bludgeoning people with scholarship is epistemically sound? You see, the reason I dove into this thread was because I was tired of you making appeals to authority and then beating others over the head with this authority. (See your exchange with Free.) I have no issues with scholarship. I have issues with people who use it to establish their superiority over others.

See red. Apparently you do...you are the one who called the scholars I quoted into 'question' and upon my request for the reasoning behind this, you charged me (confusedly) with shifting the burden of proof. (!) So which is it?

Sounds like now your real problem is the way I've gone about citing these authorities, not the authorities themselves. That's rather weak and cynical and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Reason? It's actually the counter of reason. You have claimed they are authorities and others should trust their perspective. However, you have provided no reasons as to why. And, rather than provide reasons, you decided to pretend its my responsibility to show why we shouldn't? That is a textbook case of shifting the burden of proof.

See my other post.

I think you lost yourself in discussion. So now we're back to the authorities themselves again. You don't think it's a valid epistemological principle to trust expert testimony unless you have a valid reason to discredit it?

I'd love to see you argue that one (as prima facie ridiculous as it is), but then again, it seems you can't figure it what is exactly that you are arguing.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

Sounds like now your real problem is the way I've gone about citing these authorities, not the authorities themselves.

Yes, precisely. I am attacking your authorities because you're lording them over the other members.

That's rather weak and cynical and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You can poison the well as you like, but you have still provided no reason why those here should trust your authorities.

 

[Guest]

You don't think it's a valid epistemological principle to trust expert testimony unless you have a valid reason to discredit it?

Do you still hook up with prostitutes? (Loaded questions. Fun for the whole family.)

I'd love to see you argue that one (as prima facie ridiculous as it is), but then again, it seems you can't figure it what is exactly that you are arguing.

Oh, that I do.

 

[wavy]

Yes, precisely. I am attacking your authorities because you're lording them over the other members.

That doesn't even make sense. Either you have a problem with me or you have a problem with my authorities, or both. But the connection you described just now is nonsensical.

You can poison the well as you like, but you have still provided no reason why those here should trust your authorities.

If you don't know what poisoning the well is, don't charge anyone with it. I'd admonish you to look it up.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

That doesn't even make sense. Either you have a problem with me or you have a problem with my authorities, or both. But the connection you described just now is nonsensical.

I have no problem with you. I have no problem with the authorities (per se). I have an issue with your approach to applying authority and education to the discussion.

If you don't know what poisoning the well is, don't charge anyone with it. I'd admonish you to look it up.

I understand what it is, and you are employing it as a rhetorical strategy. You may well be doing so unconsciously, that's precisely what you're doing.

 

[wavy]

You don't think it's a valid epistemological principle to trust expert testimony unless you have a valid reason to discredit it?

Do you still hook up with prostitutes? (Loaded questions. Fun for the whole family.)

Here we go again with the misplaced fallacy charges...

What I asked was a perfectly reasonable question and presumes nothing about you (as a loaded question would): Do you or do you not think it's a valid epistemological principle to trust expert testimony unless you have a valid reason to discredit it? This is a simple query. How you answer it will either vindicate or render meaningless the purpose of your statements in this thread.

Oh, that I do.

I'll leave that to the reader now.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

I have no problem with you. I have no problem with the authorities (per se). I have an issue with your approach to applying authority and education to the discussion.

Sure, because God forbid that some one should cite the experts or use their education in a discussion!

I understand what it is, and you are employing it as a rhetorical strategy. You may well be doing so unconsciously, that's precisely what you're doing.

Nonsense. If you knew what it was you'd realize I've done nothing of the sort, because poisoning the well is a deliberate attempt to throw negative light on your opponent at the onset of an argument or point of discussion so that the audience involved will be predisposed, or more susceptible to, viewing your opponents arguments as wrong.

Valid criticisms of your inconsistencies in this thread do not constitute 'poisoning the well'.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Guest]

What I asked was a perfectly reasonable question and presumes nothing about you (as a loaded question would): Do you or do you not think it's a valid epistemological principle to trust expert testimony unless you have a valid reason to discredit it? This is a simple query. How you answer it will either vindicate or render meaningless the purpose of your statements in this thread.

Why should one trust an expert? Why should one trust your cited experts?

 

[Guest]

Sure, because God forbid that some one should cite the experts or use their education in a discussion!

Nice rhetorical strategy. I have no issues with people using their education. It's when they lord it over others.

I understand what it is, and you are employing it as a rhetorical strategy. You may well be doing so unconsciously, that's precisely what you're doing.

Nonsense. If you knew what it was you'd realize I've done nothing of the sort, because poisoning the well is a deliberate attempt to throw negative light on your opponent at the onset of an argument or point of discussion so that the audience involved will be predisposed, or more susceptible to, viewing your opponents arguments as wrong.

Well, not quite. Posioning the well can be an attack on the person or the argument. Though, both have been employed.

Valid criticisms of your inconsistencies in this thread do not constitute 'poisoning the well'.

Really?

That's rather weak and cynical and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Weak and cynical? That's like name calling for arguments.

 

[Guest]

That said, I am done for the evening. It's been fun. (And, for the record, I actually quite like you. You're fun and fairly intelligent.)

 

[wavy]

Why should one trust an expert? Why should one trust your cited experts?

Have you not been reading my comments? We trust experts because, by very definition, they are more than likely to know what they're talking about vis-a-vis some one, such as you and others in this thread, who have not the necessary qualifications to deliver judgments in the fields of inquiry concerned. But I'm sure you knew that already and are simply reluctant to answer my question. You've dug your hole now so that answering truthfully would defeat your purposes here and flat out lying would make you look ignorant.


Finis,
Eric