1/3 The bar for folks like @NeilShenvi is quite simple:
1. Accurately define and/or describe CRT according to its creators and practitioners.
2. By 1 (and that is key), either (a) demonstrate that it is "complete" in the mathematical sense, viz., that use of any part entails
1. Accurately define and/or describe CRT according to its creators and practitioners.
2. By 1 (and that is key), either (a) demonstrate that it is "complete" in the mathematical sense, viz., that use of any part entails
2/3 the whole, or (b) demonstrate that every component of CRT is unique to CRT, and therefore the component's use implicates the whole.
3. Finally, by 1 and 2 (again, that is key), demonstrate that CRT NECESSARILY (not could, might, sometimes, can be used to, is associated with,
3. Finally, by 1 and 2 (again, that is key), demonstrate that CRT NECESSARILY (not could, might, sometimes, can be used to, is associated with,
3/3 or as so construed) entails and/or logically requires a belief or beliefs which logically contradict the Gospel.
Anything short of this is fallacious: straw man, guilt by association, the fallacy of composition, hasty generalization, and/or affirming the consequent.
Anything short of this is fallacious: straw man, guilt by association, the fallacy of composition, hasty generalization, and/or affirming the consequent.
4/3 And by "simple" I don't mean easy to accomplish; I don't think it can be. But the bar is simply stated. That's what's required for the claims to be taken seriously. So far, he and they have not even come close. So no need to take their claims seriously.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
