Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Geez Bot, I wasn't supposing even your analogy was feasible with your kids. I was supposing the whole thing was fabricated. I know mine will blame each other for the same infractions, but I don't suspect any of them of any really devious stuff like killing little animals and shoplifting or worse. But I will admit to being mislead by my daughter for years and assuming she was being truthful when she wasn't while I was ready to assume my sons were not. I was not one to make a decision of guilt on feelings though, and my policy was they were all guilty unless I saw the act myself. Now that they are older they actually enjoy telling me how they had me fooled. And I see the side of my daughter I never could before. Makes me feel better about my policy of "all guilty unless Dad witnesses the crime" now. Jim
|
Well, that's the problem as wellas the value of argument by analogy. We choose a circumstance that fits our argument and then disown the argument when a real-life exception arises. So, I'm dumping that argument.
What I'm searching for is an illustration of how additional knowledge plays a vital role when several lines of evidence point in a non-coincident directions.
Say for example there's a man in a box without windows. He suddenly finds himself thrown against the floor with great violence. After a time, he adjusts and it seems that stability is reached. Then suddenly he starts floating upward and suddenly he careens toward the ceiling. He finds himself flattend against the ceiling and then slowly struggles to his feet.
The hapless man things that maybe there is a machine outside of his box, like a giant magnet, pulling him this way or that. Or maybe somebody has his box on a bungie.
How can this man know the truth of his circumstances without having special knowledge of what's going-on outside of his closed box?