Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,824
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 219:
Line 219: + Line 240:
Line 241: − +
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
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 the poor argumentation tactic of "elephant hurling" ==
== The essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan" engages in the poor argumentation tactic of "elephant hurling" ==
== The essay engages in the logical fallacy called the fallacy of exclusion ==
== 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.'"
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)
"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)