Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

7 Comments

  1. Dale
    May 16, 2010 @ 8:20 am

    An exegetical fallacy, I take it, is just a fallacy – a bad inference – where the subject matter is interpreting a text.

  2. Rey Reynoso
    May 15, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

    I didn’t take Bowman’s point as a new kind of logical fallacy, but an old kind of exegetical fallacy.

  3. ScottL
    May 11, 2010 @ 11:11 am

    Dave –

    At least stay away from 14,500 word rebuttals. 😉

  4. Dave Burke
    May 8, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

    Dale,

    I think this is a serious deficiency in the debate format – both of you are forced by it to try to anticipate the other’s arguments, and this doesn’t work well – wheels are spun.

    I agree, it’s frustrating. I’ve never used this debating model before; I was trained in the classical style of positive argument contra negative rebuttal, and that’s how I’ve always debated.

    Suggestion: chop 1000 words off the case each week, and require the opponent to give a 1000 word rebuttal, within 3 days of each posting. This way we’ll get more positive interaction – less shadow boxing and more jousting, if I can mix my metaphors.

    I’m not sure if 4k words would be sufficient to make a robust case, and 1k rebuttal also seems too light. But you’re right, something along those lines would be better. Maybe next time!

  5. Dale
    May 8, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

    I think this is a serious deficiency in the debate format – both of you are forced by it to try to anticipate the other’s arguments, and this doesn’t work well – wheels are spun.

    Suggestion: chop 1000 words off the case each week, and require the opponent to give a 1000 word rebuttal, within 3 days of each posting. This way we’ll get more positive interaction – less shadow boxing and more jousting, if I can mix my metaphors. 🙂

  6. trinities - SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 4 PART 2 – BOWMAN (DALE)
    May 8, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

    […] In part 1 I argued that Bowman attributes a non-existent fallacy to unitarians. After this faltering start, things get better. Continuing his pre-emptive rebuttal, Bowman argues that there is nothing about the roots of the Hebrew and Greek words translated “spirit” that requires them to mean a force or energy. Surely, this is correct, and his examples show this. […]

  7. Dave Burke
    May 7, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

    Dale,

    I was making a general observation about a standard Trinitarian argument re. the Holy Spirit.

    Notice that I did not accuse Bowman of using this argument; I had no idea if he would be using it or not, since we don’t get a preview of each other’s arguments each week and I haven’t seen any material from him on this subject before.