Posted: Jul 10, 2017 2:00 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:Leucius Charinus wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:
You say you have done so on multiple occasions, but that simply isn't true, and there's still no response here. You're still simply ignoring the question of what arguments there are to support your view of the text, and what reasons you have for agreeing with one set of scholars over another.
The reasons I have for agreeing with one set of scholars over another should be logically obvious from the hypothesis raised in the OP and repeated for at least the 5th time in the bolded section immediately above.
Yeah, and I've read it for at least the fifth time. There's no argument there for thinking the reference is interpolated ...
It's not an argument it's a specific hypothesis in the field of history. Do you understand the difference? As far as I am aware a hypothesis requires neither evidence or argument. It must be falsifiable, and it must not be falsified by any available evidence. Ideally the hypothesis seeks to have a great explanatory power concerning all the available evidence (in the set of evidence under investigation)
Yeah, I get the difference. At the moment, you've hypothesised that the reference is interpolated. I'm looking for reasons for thinking that hypothesis might be, you know, true.
Leucius Charinus wrote:
With the Marcus reference, logically both sets of scholars cannot be right. One is right. The other is wrong,
Uh huh.
Leucius Charinus wrote:
This discussion concerns the strength of the hypothesis - in terms of its explanatory power concerning all the available evidence (in the set of evidence under investigation)
And it's the strength of that hypothesis that you seem curiously reluctant (or, rather, unable) to test.