View Single Post
Old 15th December 2015, 09:47 AM   #2033
Mostly harmless
Mojo's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."

It certainly does apply, especially because your "inferences" are based on circular logic. You are inferring the existence of patching from the fact that the carbon dating gives what you consider to be the wrong date, and then trying to use this inference as evidence that the carbon dating is wrong.

Inferences may be useful if they are based on relevant observations, but none of your speculations about invisible, near invisible, or otherwise undetected and undocumented repairs are based on anything beyond your fervent desire to discount the carbon dating. They are not evidence.
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top