Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot really. You're using a much more strict definition for the term, "as a whole" than is used in normal English.
We have no axiom that says sub-optimal acting yields a non-good play. If we did, I would say your sentence is a contradiction.
We do have an axiom that says that something that is unreasonable cannot be believed. Thus, to say, "As a whole, Genesis is believable, although it contains several things that are unreasonable" is a contradiction.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=as%20a%20whole
Originally posted by lucifershammerConsider the conjunction of premises:
Any analysis of the accuracy of the Bible would have to analyse the accuracy of individual assertions, so I see no way you can avoid "piecemeal analysis". The term "as a whole" is misleading because it also implies "in the majority" or "in balance".
A and B and C and D and E and F and G.
Suppose C is false.
If I say that "As a whole, this conjunction is false" does it imply to you that the majority of the conjuncts are false? No, it shouldn't. It is a statement about the entity as a whole, not about its parts.
This is the sense in which I intended the phrase "as a whole;" that is, a conjunction of the assertions of Genesis.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn which case, the term "completely accurate" should do perfectly as well - an entity can only be completely accurate if all of its assertions are accurate.
Consider the conjunction of premises:
A and B and C and D and E and F and G.
Suppose C is false.
If I say that "As a whole, this conjunction is false" does it imply to you that the majority of the conjuncts are false? No, it shouldn't. It is a statement about the entity as a whole, not about its parts.
This is the sense in which I intended the phrase "as a whole;" that is, a conjunction of the assertions of Genesis.
I understood the sense in which you used the term "as a whole" but, since you were using it in a stricter sense than normal English, somewhere down the line in the discussion it could quite easily be misinterpreted by one or both sides.
Why use an ambiguous term when an unambiguous one will do?
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI will concede that in hindsight I chose a poor term, but I maintain I did so in the interest of precision. I didn't realize that "as a whole" was a well-defined idiom. I didn't intend to use the expression "as a whole" as a whole. I should have used the expression "as a conjunction of each of its assertions."
In which case, the term "completely accurate" should do perfectly as well - an entity can only be completely accurate if all of its assertions are accurate.
I understood the sense in which you used the term "as a whole" but, s ...[text shortened]... des.
Why use an ambiguous term when an unambiguous one will do?
Could we compromise and use the expression "asswhole" to denote the latter for the remainder of this discussion? For example, "Genesis, asswhole, is not believable."
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIsn't this argument ad asinus?
I will concede that in hindsight I chose a poor term, but I maintain I did so in the interest of precision. I didn't realize that "as a whole" was a well-defined idiom. I didn't intend to use the expression "as a whole" as a whole. I should have used the expression "as a conjunction of each of its assertions."
Could we compromise an ...[text shortened]... er for the remainder of this discussion? For example, "Genesis, asswhole, is not believable."
Did anyone answer this question - can a person believe something that is unreasonable. I don't mean it is considered unreasonable to someone else, I mean can it something be both believed and considered unreasonable at the same time. (By unreasonable I don't mean unprovable.) If I find something unreasonable - can I believe it is true.
I know many of my beliefs appear unreasonable to others, but I could not believe them if I did not find them reasonable. It would seem to be a contradiction. Therefore I hold that all beliefs a person holds, that person considers reasonable.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLaughing my asswhole off.
I will concede that in hindsight I chose a poor term, but I maintain I did so in the interest of precision. I didn't realize that "as a whole" was a well-defined idiom. I didn't intend to use the expression "as a whole" as a whole. I should have used the expression "as a conjunction of each of its assertions."
Could we compromise an ...[text shortened]... er for the remainder of this discussion? For example, "Genesis, asswhole, is not believable."
