For the worker is worthy of his wage. But the omission of the Spirit in such texts proves nothing. The Missing Holy Spirit My final example of a bad argument from silence is the claim that the Holy Spirit is not a person because he is not mentioned in certain passages.
Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.
That is quite different from surveying its strengths and weaknesses. There are plenty of other examples anyway. To support the belief that the Holy Spirit is impersonal, the argument depends on knowing that a the Holy Spirit would have a personal name if he were a person, b biblical writers would know that personal name for the Holy Spirit if he had one, and c they would tell us that personal name if they knew it.
Those are a lot of assumptions, for which no evidence can be provided. Most historians disagree with Wood's reasoning. And most examples now are from history, not religion by Arguments from silence measure.
So what Duncan holds himself is that AFS are a "dialogical topos" to be evaluated based on the assignment of authority to the arguer.
Garraghan goes on to offer two conditions that an argument from silence must fulfill in order to be used in an historical argument: The argument from silence attempts to demonstrate that an alleged historical event never actually happened, and it attempts to do so based on the silence of an author or group of authors on that event.
As usual you are long on accusations, short on sources. Arguments from silence seem ubiquitous in religious discourse. This was summarized by Jimmy Wales as follows: The former is not an argument from silence; only the latter is.
Word Aflame Press, It turns out that Bart Ehrman himself knew, as we might expect, of this line in On the Flesh of Christ You have caught nothing. Argument from Silence argumentum e silentio Description: An argument from silence infers from the fact that something is not said that it is being denied, or that it is not true.
But what is missing in this discussion, then, is any mention that Jesus had spoken words against divorce and adultery during his ministry. She cannot know how you feel about the issue unless you express yourself.
Unless, of course, there is a source that would lend support to the current imbalance as being representative of the academic community. Law states that while arguing from silence is always dangerous, one may use it as an indication of the low level of local military employment in Camerino for the Da Varano in the Middle Ages.
Duncan is not a religious source at all. RS sources that Arguments from silence involve risk and hazard[ edit ] I think in view of the discussions, I should just go ahead and cite policies and guidelines. So with one Buddhist source and one Jewish source, there is no potential Judeo-Christian issue at all.
I see only two: It is true that the Son of God has a personal name—Jesus. Humanpublic was topic banned and then indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Some anti-Trinitarians read a lot into the fact that there are passages that mention the Father and the Son together but not the Spirit e.
This is a straightforward application of policy to determine weight via the determination of the majority and minority views. You just stare at your coffee cup. And the scholarly allergy towards arguments from silence is well reflected in the ongoing warnings about them by multiple scholars, as reflected in the article, and others, e.
The third criterion is applied after we have a number of different writers and documents that have been evaluated through the first two. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; The WP: Howell and Prevenier, then, propose three conditions for the proper use of an argument from silence: Is there such a prevalence - I hold that there is not, and I have provided sources in the article to that effect.
You search the New York Times for December 2 and find no record of this incident. That is a meaningless argument here given that one could say "all air travel has risk". Is there such a prevalence - I hold that there is not, and I have provided sources in the article to that effect.
The second condition that Howell and Prevenier adduce should not really be a condition at all. The article states that the claims of fallacy assume the AFS is intended as a proof, but no historical argumnet is intended as a proof.John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well.
In other words, John believes that Jack's ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence. Critics of the Trinity who deny that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father and the Son commonly use arguments from silence (e.g., the Holy Spirit isn't mentioned in Paul's salutations).
This article explains why these are bad arguments. An argument from silence in this context means an argument that appeals to what the Bible does not say, rather than to what it does say. Rushdoony’s and North’s positions on Operation Rescue rest on different forms of the argument from silence.
The next sentence where he states that arguments from silence are not mentioned in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations or Hamblin's book Fallacies is already included in the article (the section on structure) - it was there before you typed this.
Arguments from silence typically ignore evidence contrary to the assumptions that the person making the argument brings to the subject. Arguments from silence pertaining to the personhood of the Holy Spirit are perhaps the most common types of arguments used by anti-Trinitarians on this issue.
In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural. But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the correct default inference from silence.Download