Acartia_Bogart
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014
|
| Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2018,21:10) | | Quote | 28
Allan KeithMay 23, 2018 at 7:07 pm
KairosFocus,
| Quote |
AK, you obviously don’t intend to address the first problem with your question:
|
Are you referring to the question that I had no problem answering?
There is a serious paranoia vibe going on here. What is so hard with the question? All I have asked is whether everything should be open to scrutiny. If you prefer the inverse, are there things that should never be open to scrutiny?
The answer to either is simple. My answer to both is yes and no, respectively. What is so earth shatteringly difficult with answering? Are you expecting a loaded question when I have stated that there isn’t one?
You can either answer with a simple response, or do what you have done so far. |
linky |
And mullings’ response: | Quote | | Let me put it this way, “everything should be open to scrutiny” refers to itself and cannot pass its own test, imposes an infinite regress and ends in absurdity. It SEEMS to be reasonable but collapses on closer scrutiny, much like the notorious verification principle did sixty years past. Likewise, evolutionary materialism is similarly self-falsifying. No serious answer can be given. Say, yes and that too is subject to scrutiny leading on to the regress. Say a simplistic no and you fall into a rhetorical trap much like in saying no to have you stopped beating your wife yet. In short, the posed implicit dilemma fails and embeds an absurdity. |
I guess a simple yes or no is not possible from this tinfoil hat wearing paranoid. I read the question and do not see where the trap is. But Mullings sees any question from someone who disagrees with him as a possible trap. What a sad individual.
|
