2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 573:
Line 573: +
→Intentions
If you defense is that it is logically possible to be an eyewitness account, you are indeed right, it is logically possible. But also a good work of fiction is logically possible, so this is a fairly weak argument to support your position. That is why I called this kind of argument sophistry. I thought that you were claiming that you had actual evidence to support your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
If you defense is that it is logically possible to be an eyewitness account, you are indeed right, it is logically possible. But also a good work of fiction is logically possible, so this is a fairly weak argument to support your position. That is why I called this kind of argument sophistry. I thought that you were claiming that you had actual evidence to support your position. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:As I said, I was merely trying to refute your claim that it could not be an eyewitness account. It looks like I succeeded in that. The only thing I failed in was in not doing what you thought I was doing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)
:As I said, I was merely trying to refute your claim that it could not be an eyewitness account. It looks like I succeeded in that. The only thing I failed in was in not doing what you thought I was doing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Feel free to declare victory on this point. Your quite far away from your earlier positions that your view is the only legitimate view, but now it is merely one view that could be logically possible. If you are happy with such a minimal position, I call that a victory too. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
===Scientific Claims===
===Scientific Claims===