Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Interesting logic, though I don't know the technical terminology. But 
your appendectomy argument only works if there is the opportunity of a 
full examination of your abdomen. If the only evidence of the state of 
your abdomen is a few damaged photographs of some parts of it, and 
there is no scarring visible, there is no proof that you have not had 
an appendectomy because the evidence is not complete. Similarly, we do 
not have complete evidence about what people were thinking in the 1st 
century or whatever, but only a few "snapshots". And so (for example) 
we cannot argue that people did not have a concept of virgin birth 
just because there is no evidence for such a concept in the surviving 
documents.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Alma, Parthenos, Virgin
Author:  <Joseph.Crea AT worldnet.att.net> at Internet
Date:    29/10/99 23:52


Hello Ken!

At 04:56 PM 10/29/99 -0700, kdlitwak wrote:
>There are two large methodological problems with the following: 
>
>1.  Don't we all know that arguments from silence are completely invalid?


CREA
    Are you arguing for the INvalidity of Modus Tollendus Ponens or that
"denying the consequent" carries no weight?  If I were to claim to have had 
an appendectomy and can produce no evidence whatsoever of abdominal scarring 
consistent with customary surgical procededures, such lack definitely falls 
into the category of an "argument from silence", but is is hardly invalid or 
non-evidential.


With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea
<Joseph.Crea AT worldnet.att.net>