Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 8040121" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I want you to recognize that you are also adding details to the system in order to defeat it, and that this method of argument is only self-defeating. Every time you point out such a statement in another person's argument, whether rightly or wrongly, you affirm the statement's negation (and usually expand on it with another statement or two of your own). Somebody says that (e.g.) oral tradition is less lawful than written law, you say it is equally lawful if not more so*. The book doesn't say either way. Both claims are interpretations. So what makes your interpretation better than their interpretation? Why should anyone adopt it? You tell us that it leads to a contradiction, but standard interpretive principles tell us to minimize contradictions where possible, so that's exactly the reason we shouldn't adopt it.*Side note: If your impulse is to defend this particular claim, stop and remember that it's just an example I'm using to illustrate the formal problem. Replace these examples with "P" and "not-P" if it's less distracting.</blockquote>