Barriers to atheist - theist dialogue

[Angrboda]

In all fairness, he did respond to the Colorado question. And I for one would like to see more than an argument from silence before you go about slinging the mud.

As for an argument from silence, I do not know what that means. Perhaps it is my poor education, firmly grounded in high school.

An argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion drawn based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.

Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain. This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.

Some scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid. Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events. Yifa has pointed out the perils of arguments from silence, in that although no references appear to the "Rules of purity" codes of monastic conduct of 1103 in the Transmission of the Lamp, or any of the Pure Land documents, a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.

Wikipedia:

I went back and read all the posts, I could find no such response. Perhaps if you point me to the place where he wrote it I could then read it.

See the other thread on this.

The hospital is not being hypocritical, rather its defence is pointing out that, given the law says an unborn child is not a person, it cannot issue a judgement on grounds that it is a person.

The law has to apply its principles consistently.

Its a typical "rag on the Catholics" media story - presenting an exceptionally twisted take on events, for people to affirm their existing prejudices.

[]

If what you are saying is that he didn't respond to the question in a manner that met with your satisfaction, that's a different matter, and would make your complaint an example of equivocation, and your charge that he was "avoiding questions" a disingenuous one.