Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
68 online now:
kjsimons, Pollux, Tangle (3 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 646 of 708 (769075)
09-16-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by PaulK
09-16-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
Oh, right, Hugh Ross. For some reason my mind fetched the information on Carl Baugh. Turns out it makes little difference. Summary of Reasons To Believe's Testable Creation Model makes clear that Ross is talking about frames of reference and initial conditions described in the Bible.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2015 12:09 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1363 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 647 of 708 (769076)
09-16-2015 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by Percy
09-16-2015 11:18 AM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
Percy writes:


While I of course can't be certain without access to the Biblical Paradoxes lecture series, from what I know about Hugh Ross it seems pretty likely that where says "frame of reference" he means Biblical versus non-Biblical. And that where he says "initial conditions" he means a 6000-year old Earth versus a 13.8 billion year old universe.
--Percy


Hugh tries to show people that they can apply the scientific method to the study of Scripture. In interpreting Gen 1, it is important to note the "frame of reference" and the "initial conditions" of each step in the creation process. E.g. the frame of reference for Gen 1:2 ff is the earth; these are descriptions of what would have been seen by an earth-based observer, not by a heavenly observer.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by Percy, posted 09-16-2015 11:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by Percy, posted 09-16-2015 2:09 PM kbertsche has taken no action
 Message 650 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2015 3:24 PM kbertsche has taken no action
 Message 653 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2015 10:38 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 648 of 708 (769081)
09-16-2015 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 647 by kbertsche
09-16-2015 1:33 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
kbertsche writes:

Hugh tries to show people that they can apply the scientific method to the study of Scripture.

But Ross is not "applying the scientific method to the study of Scripture." He's studying scripture using an approach that happens to bear some resemblance to the scientific method. And so what. Independent of whether his approach to studying scripture has any value, it's still not a method appropriate for science and the study of the natural world.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by kbertsche, posted 09-16-2015 1:33 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 649 of 708 (769094)
09-16-2015 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Pressie
09-16-2015 7:16 AM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
That's not any scientific method at all. I think that Hugh Ross was not telling the truth to you. The scientific method starts with observation. Then why?

Quite frankly, nobody cares where the inspiration for an hypothesis comes from as long as you check that it does fit some observations before getting to far down the path of doing some experiments. If an hypothesis is falsifiable and makes predictions that can be verified by experiment, who cares where it came from.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Pressie, posted 09-16-2015 7:16 AM Pressie has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 650 of 708 (769101)
09-16-2015 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 647 by kbertsche
09-16-2015 1:33 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
quote:

Hugh tries to show people that they can apply the scientific method to the study of Scripture

From what I've seen he more commonly tries to pass apologetics off as science.

quote:

. In interpreting Gen 1, it is important to note the "frame of reference" and the "initial conditions" of each step in the creation process. E.g. the frame of reference for Gen 1:2 ff is the earth; these are descriptions of what would have been seen by an earth-based observer, not by a heavenly observer.

And what is the scientific basis for the claim that this is the correct "frame of reference" ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by kbertsche, posted 09-16-2015 1:33 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 651 of 708 (770377)
10-04-2015 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 640 by Percy
09-15-2015 8:54 AM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
Dear Percy,

Thanks for your continued interest.

Percy writes:

Any reaction to the correct description of the Scientific Method?

Yes, you claim that yours (note here you called this your ‘own version’) is ‘the correct one’; and yet I find no incompatibilities with the one I posted that you say is ‘wrong’.

Click here for my comparison between your ‘own version’ and Dr. Ross’ version of the Scientific Method.

Comparing the two the only real difference I could find was that the one I posted presumes a question; were as your puts having a question as the first step.

I even googled ‘The Scientific Method’, randomly picked ten images depicting ‘the Scientific Method’, and compared them. 3 out of ten did not put ‘As a Question’ as one of the steps; and one of them put it second (behind ‘Observation’).

So, please forgive me for asking, but, why is your version of the Scientific Method “the correct description” and Dr. Ross’ “wrong”??

Percy writes:

Doesn't it look to you like a very effective method for determining what is true or real? Isn't it pretty much what everyone does, in a much less formal sort of way, when they're trying to figure something out?

O’ most defiantly, that’s why I posted (a version of) it.

Hope you have a great day,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 640 by Percy, posted 09-15-2015 8:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 652 by Percy, posted 10-04-2015 8:15 PM JRTjr01 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 652 of 708 (770393)
10-04-2015 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 651 by JRTjr01
10-04-2015 4:10 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
JRTjr01 writes:

Yes, you claim that yours (note here you called this your ‘own version’) is ‘the correct one’;

Except that I didn't claim my version is "the correct one." What I said in Message 631 was, "You can find many satisfactory characterizations of the scientific method on the Internet, but here's my own version." That's practically the opposite of what you claim I said. You need to do a better job of reading for comprehension.

Now that you've read a number of different descriptions of the scientific method, you understand it doesn't include identifying a frame of reference or determining the initial conditions. I was just trying to help you see that the description you took from Biblical Paradoxes lecture series was bogus.

But that wasn't my main point. I was mostly just trying to encourage you to cease being evasive and begin engaging the discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by JRTjr01, posted 10-04-2015 4:10 PM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by JRTjr01, posted 10-09-2015 12:48 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 653 of 708 (770397)
10-04-2015 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 647 by kbertsche
09-16-2015 1:33 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
it is important to note the "frame of reference

So Hugh is describing the creation of the universe from a 'viewpoint' or 'perspective' (because surely, "frame of reference" is a horrible misnomer) that no living being actually occupied? Why would that be a sensible thing to record?

It is perhaps understandable that a human being on earth at the time might have mistaken the time of the atmosphere turning transparent as the day the sun and moon were created, but in actuality, nobody could have seen any such thing. Instead man learned of (or made up) the story in Genesis well after all of the events in Genesis 1 and 2 were completed.

Now given that there was nobody at reference point X and that the story in Genesis does not claim to be an eye witness account, for what purpose was the giving a bogus and incorrect account of creation. Was it really too much to expect early humans to understand the sun and moon being behind some clouds?

I have to admit that in the past when you talked about 'frames of reference', I had assumed that there was some general relativity time/space explanation that munged up the order of events as perceived. But now I learn that we were pretending that some human on earth saw creation, something entirely inconsistent with the story in Genesis itself? Makes no sense to me.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 647 by kbertsche, posted 09-16-2015 1:33 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 656 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2015 1:18 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 659 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2015 6:14 PM NoNukes has replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 654 of 708 (770399)
10-05-2015 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 641 by ringo
09-15-2015 12:29 PM


Re: What Do you Mean???????????
Dear Ringo,

Great hearing from you again. Thank you for your continued interest in our little discussion.

Ringo writes:

I had a teacher once who said that if you can't explain something to an eight-year-old you don't really understand it. So how would you explain to an eight-year-old how you would tell the difference between a real Bigfoot and a phony?

She sounds like a wise person; and if a bright eight year old asked me:

Ringo writes:

If you assert that you can tell the difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit, the onus is on you to tell us how you can tell the difference.

I would reply:

JRTjr writes:

The fact that you suggest that there is a difference between “a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit” shows that even you can distinguish, with some accuracy, the difference between something that is ‘real’ and something that is ‘Fake’.

One law enforcement officer was once asked “how can you tell a fake dollar bill?” his reply was “by knowing what a real one looks like”.

One cannot logically say something is ‘fake’ (not real) if there is not a ‘genuine article’ (real thing) to compare it to …

I believe this would satisfy most eight year olds; however, some may ask: ‘But if we do not know what a real Bigfoot looks like how can we tell that the man in the suit is not a real Bigfoot’

Then I would sit him down, look him eye to eye and say:

“Good question. But, think about it; If we know what a ‘real man’ looks like, and we can determine that it is a ‘real man in a suit’ than we can deduce that he is not a bigfoot but a man in a Bigfoot suit; even if we don’t know what a ‘real Bigfoot’ is; or even if Bigfoot are not real.”

The reason I have been trying to get agreement on a standard set of definitions from you is because your response was:

Ringo writes:

I asked you how you could tell the difference. Why don't you tell us? Be specific. In detail, tell us the points that distinguish a "real" Bigfoot from a fake Bigfoot.

This shows me that you either ignored or did not understand my reply.

I chose to believe you did not understand it; so I have been trying to help you by suggesting you look up the definitions of different words. That is the only way you will understand what I am saying if, in dead, you are not simply ignoring what I am saying.

Ringo writes:

The problem is that when I TELL you what else I meant, you label everything I say as absurd. We can't communicate if you assume that everything you don't already know is absurd.

I do not label everything you say as Absurd; just those things that are logical incoherent.

Examples:

Ringo writes:

There is no absolute truth.

This is an absurd statement because; to be true it has to be faults. This is called circular logic.

Ringo writes:

Theology is not science.

I pointed out that ‘Theology’ fits at least three of the definitions of the word ‘Science’.

Ringo writes:

I mean what I mean. I tell you what I mean and you still insist that I mean something else.

then you say:

Ringo writes:

Should I doubt that I know what I mean? Ultimately, yes.

How can I be sure of what you mean when you yourself can’t be sure of what you mean when you say something??

Ringo writes:

Collective agreement is all we have. It's how science works.

If that is true; then Atheists are automatically wrong because 86% of the world’s population believes (Collective agree) that god/gods or goddesses exist (I.e. are real).

This is the problem with your idea that “All we have is our understanding, so the idea that there "is" something that is "actually" true has no value.”

If that were ‘all we had’ then we would not be able to know that was all we had; because to know ‘that was all we had’ would be to know something “that is "actually" true”.

Therefore, logically speaking, we can either:

‘Know things; and know we know them.’

Or

‘We cannot know things; and cannot know that we cannot know them.’

In other words: to claim we cannot know ‘anything’, is making a ‘knowledge claim’; that, if true, we could not know.

Hope to hear from you again,
JRTjr

{P.S. I want to make it clear that I am not attacking you personally. When I say that some of the things you say are “Absurd” I am simply stating that certain things you say are at variance with reason; (A)manifestly (B)false.}

A. adjective 1. readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.
B. adjective 1.not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement. 5. not genuine; counterfeit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 641 by ringo, posted 09-15-2015 12:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by ringo, posted 10-05-2015 12:18 PM JRTjr01 has replied

  
JRTjr01
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 97
From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Joined: 08-24-2013


Message 655 of 708 (770400)
10-05-2015 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 639 by Percy
09-14-2015 4:35 PM


Re: What Do you Mean???????????

Dear Percy,

Percy writes:

I think Ringo is hoping that working with him on the Bigfoot example will help you both to a better understanding of each other's views. Explaining one's views by working through an example is often very effective. It might work better than exchanging word definitions. If you don't like the Bigfoot example then suggest another.

Thank you for the suggestion.

You are right that ‘working through an example is often’ a ‘very effective’ way to gain understanding and work through a problem.

It’s not that I don’t like the Bigfoot example; even though he worded it in an odd way, I tried to explain to him where I was coming from in post # 607.

The problem, as far as I see it, is that he does not want to accept anything that conflicts with the idea that ‘We can’t know anything’.

If you read through our dialog from post # 607 on I think you will see what I mean.

I know he would accuse me of doing the same; but I am bound by the words (and the definitions of those words) that I use.

Ringo will say something, and then claim he meant something else; and when I call him on the carpet he simply claims I’m not listening to what he said.

This is why I’m trying to tie him down to specific definitions. I’ve even offered to let him define the words.

Again, thanks for the thought,
JRTjr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by Percy, posted 09-14-2015 4:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by Percy, posted 10-05-2015 7:54 AM JRTjr01 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 656 of 708 (770401)
10-05-2015 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by NoNukes
10-04-2015 10:38 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
Of course it makes sense if you understand that Hugh Ross is starting from the position that Genesis literally describes the creation as he understands it. Hugh Ross is an astronomer, and pretty much agrees with mainstream science in that area. Thus, the choice of the "frame of reference" is based on the interpretation rather than the other way around.

I think kbertsche realises this, which is why he has not answered my earlier post. Looking for excuses to interpret the data as supporting a pre-determined view is hardly scientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2015 10:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 663 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2015 1:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20749
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 657 of 708 (770405)
10-05-2015 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by JRTjr01
10-05-2015 12:42 AM


Re: What Do you Mean???????????
JFTjr01 writes:

It’s not that I don’t like the Bigfoot example; even though he worded it in an odd way, I tried to explain to him where I was coming from in post # 607.

Before I respond, let me give you a short cut for creating a link to a message in the same thread. Instead of [URL=http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=761779]post # 607.[/url] you can just say [msg=607].

Looking at Ringo's Message 608 where he replies to your Message 607, I think Ringo should save any discussion he might like to have about whether reality is real for another thread, but I don't think that's what he really wanted to discuss. The question of whether you or he or reality exists was just an example, as Bigfoot was an example, and as your fake dollar bill was an example. The central issue is how we know what we know, or in slightly more detail, how we establish the greatest confidence in what we think we know. When Ringo asked how you know whether you or he or reality exists I think he was just trying to say that we can never be 100% certain in what we think we know, which in science is a principle known as tentativity.

I attempted to follow the discussion between you and Ringo to its roots, and it seems possible that the original question was whether there's any such thing as an absolute truth. If that's right, then while Ringo and I would undoubtedly phrase the question differently, I think it is the same question: How do you know any idea is an absolute truth? Further, how do you know there even *is* anything like an absolute truth?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Minor typo in 2nd para.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by JRTjr01, posted 10-05-2015 12:42 AM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by JRTjr01, posted 10-09-2015 11:50 AM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19520
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 658 of 708 (770422)
10-05-2015 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 654 by JRTjr01
10-05-2015 12:10 AM


Re: What Do you Mean???????????
JRTjr01 writes:

The fact that you suggest that there is a difference between “a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit” shows that even you can distinguish, with some accuracy, the difference between something that is ‘real’ and something that is ‘Fake’.


I'm not suggesting that.

I'm not the one who claims to be able to tell the difference. I'm saying that IF you claim there is a difference, you need to be able to show us HOW you tell the difference.

JRTjr01 writes:

One cannot logically say something is ‘fake’ (not real) if there is not a ‘genuine article’ (real thing) to compare it to …


Of course you can. That's why I used the example of Bigfoot. We DON'T know if there's a real Bigfoot or not. What we need is some method of examining reports of Bigfoot so that we can determine whether they are describing something that does exist or something that SEEMS to exist.

A fake Bigfoot "exists" only in the sense that there is SOMETHING that SEEMS to be a Bigfoot. The question remains: How do you tell the difference?

How do you tell the difference between Nelson Mandela and Morgan Freeman dressed up like Nelson Mandela? How do you tell the difference between the Mighty Hulk and Lou Ferigno dressed up like the Mighty Hulk? How do you tell the difference between a new hominid species and a homo sapiens dressed up like Bigfoot?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 654 by JRTjr01, posted 10-05-2015 12:10 AM JRTjr01 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by JRTjr01, posted 10-09-2015 12:25 PM ringo has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1363 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 659 of 708 (770441)
10-05-2015 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by NoNukes
10-04-2015 10:38 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
NoNukes writes:


So Hugh is describing the creation of the universe from a 'viewpoint' or 'perspective' (because surely, "frame of reference" is a horrible misnomer) that no living being actually occupied? Why would that be a sensible thing to record?

It is perhaps understandable that a human being on earth at the time might have mistaken the time of the atmosphere turning transparent as the day the sun and moon were created, but in actuality, nobody could have seen any such thing. Instead man learned of (or made up) the story in Genesis well after all of the events in Genesis 1 and 2 were completed.

Now given that there was nobody at reference point X and that the story in Genesis does not claim to be an eye witness account, for what purpose was the giving a bogus and incorrect account of creation. Was it really too much to expect early humans to understand the sun and moon being behind some clouds?

I have to admit that in the past when you talked about 'frames of reference', I had assumed that there was some general relativity time/space explanation that munged up the order of events as perceived. But now I learn that we were pretending that some human on earth saw creation, something entirely inconsistent with the story in Genesis itself? Makes no sense to me.

Hugh is a scientist. He has a tendency to re-express theological concepts in scientific language. Sometimes this is helpful (especially for others with scientific training), but at other times it is a bit confusing (especially for those with theological training).

What Hugh refers to as "frame of reference" is what theologians call "authorial perspective". See, for example, Henry Virkler (Hermeneutics: Principles and Practices of Biblical Interpretation, Baker, 1981, pp. 84-85):

Henry Virkler writes:


Third, what was the perspective of the author? The authors sometimes write as if looking through the eyes of God (as spokesmen for God), particularly in moral matters, but in narrative sections they frequently describe things the way they appear from a human perspective (as reporters speaking phenomenologically). ... Distinguishing the author's intention to be understood as a direct spokesman for God from his intention to speak as a human reporter describing an event phenomenologically is important for an accurate understanding of his meaning.


Virkler uses the example of the Flood (Gen. 6-9) to illustrate the importance of this principle. If the account is meant to be understood noumenologically (from God's perspective), statements such as "all flesh" and "every high hill" imply a global flood. But if it is meant to be understood phenomenologically (from the perspective of a human observer), these could refer to "all flesh" and "every high hill" visible to the human observer; this would be consistent with a regional flood as well as with a global flood.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2015 10:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2015 2:39 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 664 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2015 1:54 PM kbertsche has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 660 of 708 (770461)
10-06-2015 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 659 by kbertsche
10-05-2015 6:14 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
I note that apart from explaining Ross's use of the term you still don't offer any support for the claim that it is "proper" - despite NoNukes objections. Nor do you even really explain how it is such an important part of the scientific method to deserve Ross's treatment of it.

Of course the proper frame of reference for interpreting both of the Creation stories and the Flood is that they are Middle Eastern myths. That's rather more important than speculations about "authorial perspective. Understanding the nature of the text, and the context in which it was written really is important. Too bad that Ross neglects that aspect.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 659 by kbertsche, posted 10-05-2015 6:14 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by kbertsche, posted 10-06-2015 10:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022