<$BlogRSDURL$>

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

RB11195- Rob unsuccessfully tries to Limit the Fallacy 

Rob largely repeats himself at post#11195 and attempts to limit the application of the Negative Inference Fallacy, to which I reply at post#11201



Dear Rob,
Carson states that one cannot use a negative inference as proof for exegesis. He then gives two examples. He does not state that his examples exhaust the category of negative inferences. The use of a negative inference is a fallacy, not because of a particular formula such as if A and B then C but a principle that the negative inference is not a valid exegetical technique.


I do not need to look at Carson’s two examples to see that what you have done is to propose a negative inference. It is not exactly rocket science. Do you deny that to turn the phrase not of 'men or a man' with respect to Paul into of 'men or a man' with respect to Peter is a negative inference????


[ I would like to note that Rob Bowman never actually answers this question - note added 2/6/04 by Jessica]



Lightbulb goes off!



Even your fallacious negative inference is flawed!


It dawned on me this morning that this is another fatal flaw in your logic. Paul states that he is an apostle not through 'men or a man but through Jesus and God.'


You then state a negative inference only on the first part of Paul’s statement. In reality you are doing what you claimed earlier I had done that is to ignore part of the phrase.


The negative inference for Galatians 1:1 would be to be appointed by 'men or a man and NOT appointed by Jesus and God' thus negating BOTH parts of the clause. When you negate the first clause and not the second, inverting only part of the clause you violate even the fallacious technique you are attempting to use.


In conclusion it is NEVER appropriate to assert an exegetical proof based on the inverse of a statement. This is the negative inference fallacy.


Sometimes the negative inference might be true, but it cannot be proven by the original phrase. However even this is an impossible inference on your part because you have violated the integrity of the phrase by only inverting the first part of the clause.


Rob, you cannot have it both ways. If you want the entire first phrase to be considered as a unit then you must invert the entire phrase. It is that simple.


You remain refuted.


Just me,
Jessica



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?