@Mohsin,
You supply no contradiction.
Quote from: Mohsin7 on February 17, 2014, 11:13:57 AM
Thank you. By admitting your approach (or the approach that you have adopted) has subjectivity built into it, you have basically admitted that its "credibility" isn't based on logically (i.e. deductively) proving anything. Therefore your approach is incapable of yielding objective statements and definitive answers.
Since we know that the Quran's directives are supposed to be "clear and simple" without "crookedness" we can conclude that you inductive approach is incapable of living up to the Quranic standard (since subjectivity is never "clear and simple" and is always crooked).
Unfortunately, it seems you misread. I said the word "credible" is somewhat subjective.
QuoteOf course, such a criteria is a simple test of logical consistency. A test which your approach clearly fails.
Where is the failure? If I failed to prove a certain word in Quran means X (which I never even claimed to do) then I failed, and if I did fail, your failure at this was even more miserable, as in your theory sjd in 4:102 can mean any of the classical arabic meanings, e.g. salute, adore, lower the head etc.
QuoteNo, according to the rules of logic (objectively), that will be perfectly fine. There is no subjectivity in my approach, don't confuse my approach with yours.
My point is that your method will do very little to help in the real world, i.e. practical application, due to the variance. In other words sjd in 4:102 can mean any classical arabic dictionary meaning, so when believers uphold a group salat, either everyone does their own sjd, or they discuss and agree on what sjd they are going to do beforehand. Not only that, they will first have to discuss and agree upon what they take salat to mean as according to your method it could mean any of these in 4:102 "prayer, supplication, petition, oration, eulogy, benediction, commendation, blessing, honour, magnify".
So my point is, whilst it is of course critical to not have any contradictions (like my view does not have any), if this becomes your sole criteria then you will be left with an impractical result for many things, i.e. a can of worms.
Quote
Again, all you did here was repeat rebutted objections, confirming them as refutation.
Unfortunately again, you misread. I never said "refutation". I even accepted the theoretical possibility. I simply highlighted the issues so readers would be aware of them.
You seem to be obsessed with deductive approach Vs inductive approach. I use deductive as well as inductive. Your seemingly deductive approach only gets you so far, whereas my approach gets me further in my view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoningInductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given
What is perhaps most interesting is you yourself used inductive reasoning to conclude about my method.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples/examples-of-inductive-reasoning.htmlThe term "inductive reasoning" refers to reasoning that takes specific information (i.e. my article) and makes a broader generalization (about my method) that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate.