Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,824
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 209:
Line 209: − + Line 219:
Line 219: + − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Mystery: Was John a Samaritan (view source)
Revision as of 09:27, October 12, 2025
, 09:27, October 12, 2025→The essay engages in the logical fallacy called the fallacy of exclusion
:::::'''Strength Reasoning:''' The cultural and occupational context strongly supports Jewish identity, but the absence of direct references to John’s family observing specific Jewish rituals slightly lowers the score."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7093ed62-0eb9-480a-9474-1f518aa9b7de]
:::::'''Strength Reasoning:''' The cultural and occupational context strongly supports Jewish identity, but the absence of direct references to John’s family observing specific Jewish rituals slightly lowers the score."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7093ed62-0eb9-480a-9474-1f518aa9b7de]
== The essay assembles a bunch of Lilliputian-size poor arguments and some invalid arguments while ignoring the Gulliver-sized arguments that the Apostle John was Jewish in terms of their strength ==
== The essay assembles a bunch of Lilliputian-size poor arguments and some invalid arguments while ignoring the Gulliver-sized scale of established evidence that the Apostle John was Jewish ==
"The essay's 34 points are largely Lilliputian in nature: speculative, circumstantial, or based on misinterpretations that strain to fit the thesis without rigorous evidence. For instance:
"The essay's 34 points are largely Lilliputian in nature: speculative, circumstantial, or based on misinterpretations that strain to fit the thesis without rigorous evidence. For instance:
These arguments often rely on absence of evidence or cherry-picked details, lacking empirical support from archaeology, textual criticism, or patristic sources, making them collectively weak against the "Gulliver" scale of established evidence for John's Jewish identity."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:52, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
These arguments often rely on absence of evidence or cherry-picked details, lacking empirical support from archaeology, textual criticism, or patristic sources, making them collectively weak against the "Gulliver" scale of established evidence for John's Jewish identity."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:52, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
:Now Andy may claim that he addressed the arguments that I provided via Grok, but did he? He did not truly engage the arguments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:22, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
== The essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan" engages in elephant hurling ==
== The essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan" engages in the poor argumentation tactic of "elephant hurling" ==
"Regarding "elephant hurling" (a tactic of overwhelming with a barrage of claims to obscure weak substantiation), the essay fits this by amassing 34 points without critically evaluating their validity, interconnections, or alternative explanations. It presents them as a cumulative "mystery" but avoids addressing how they might be refuted, such as by noting Galilee's Jewish demographics or John's integration into the Jerusalem-based early church leadership (Acts 3–4, Galatians 2)."
"Regarding "elephant hurling" (a tactic of overwhelming with a barrage of claims to obscure weak substantiation), the essay fits this by amassing 34 points without critically evaluating their validity, interconnections, or alternative explanations. It presents them as a cumulative "mystery" but avoids addressing how they might be refuted, such as by noting Galilee's Jewish demographics or John's integration into the Jerusalem-based early church leadership (Acts 3–4, Galatians 2)."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19]
== The essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan" shows a clear lack of falsification rigor, a key principle in sound inquiry (e.g., as emphasized by Karl Popper) ==
"The essay also shows a clear lack of falsification rigor, a key principle in sound inquiry (e.g., as emphasized by [[Karl Popper]]). It builds a one-sided case without testing the thesis against counter-evidence, such as:
John's Galilean roots in Jewish communities.
His family's observance of Jewish customs (e.g., fishing laws, temple visits).
No ancient sources (e.g., Josephus on Samaritans) linking apostles to Samaria ethnically.
Direct contradictions, like John's hostility toward Samaritans in Luke.
This absence of self-challenge undermines its credibility as a basis for judgment."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:00, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
== The essay engages in the logical fallacy called the fallacy of exclusion ==
The [[fallacy of exclusion]] is a logical fallacy where "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called '''the 'principle of total evidence'''.'"
"Finally, it commits the fallacy of exclusion by selectively highlighting details that could vaguely support the Samaritan thesis while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence (e.g., no mention of John's Jewish upbringing or the apostles' overall Jewish composition). This creates a distorted picture, excluding the broader context that reinforces the consensus view."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:08, October 12, 2025 (EDT)