W
Windfish
Guest
There is no point in continuing - TheHolyTrinity found and posted an academic journal that repeated Dr. Castañón’s credentials. This is independent verification worthy of trust, certainly. The matter is settled. I will, however, indulge in some final words.
I had an argument very similar to this one concerning a Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano, Italy. It was reported that one of the consulted scientists wrote an article about his findings, and it was published in an Italian journal of science. My interlocutor searched and searched for this article online but turned up nothing. He, therefore, claimed that the article did not exist. I, on the other hand, was not convinced. Unfruitful internet searches are not, by themselves, suggestive of anything. I eventually found the article through a contact I acquired in Italy. It was not easy. The article is now readily available on the relevant Wiki page thanks to my (low-tech) efforts.
The point is that I am sure you think your lack of findings is impressive, but it really is not.
To your credit, the strongest argument you have is the lack of cooperation from Dr. Castañón himself, but I am lead to think that he perceived your inquiry - its tone, wording, etc. - to be offensive and he responded in kind. This, too, is also an argument from silence.
To make this point, let us return to my earlier example. You meet someone, and you strike up a conversation with him.You learn he hs a PhD in forensic studies, and before your friendly chat, he was reading a lab report concerning a substance he is examing for a case. Now, you may say that anyone can possess such a document, and that may be true, but not anyone (generally) does. It is not exactly mainstream reading material. It is specialized. So some people are more likely than others to possess it. The probability of his being truthful is made higher in light of a corroborating indirect evidence. It paints a picture.
In short, your epistemology is simply flawed.
However, my previousl ine of argument is now superflous in light of TheHolyTrinity’s findings (and I am sure there are more such sources, I really have not bothered to look into the matter as closely as I have other aspects of the mystical phenomena).
Your concern is noted, though hopelessly condescending.
Be that as it may, he is not the only expert listed in any of the relevant literature. Appartently, you are limiting yourself to the information that you can obtain only from internet jockeying. You infer from the silence on other experts that Dr. Castañón is more central to the investigations than he really is. You overstate his importance. (There are, in fact, a host of experts involved besides Dr. Castañón.) One can now plainly see how the argument from silence leads to illicit conclusions. More on the argument from silence shortly.
In an argument, the burden of proof lies on the claimant. In this argument, there are two claims being made: I am making the claim that there is reason to trust Dr. Castañón about his stated credentials, and you are making the counter claim that there is no reason. Both of us have a burden of proof since both of us are making claims. To support your claim, you have adduced nothing more than arguments from silence. As I have said, these arguments are fallacious. One cannot formally conclude from the silence of Y about X that X is not true. This is especially true when you are apparently limiting your inquiry to what you can obtain from internet jockeying. There are plenty of reasons why acquiring the information we are seeking would not be amenable to Google search.
I had an argument very similar to this one concerning a Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano, Italy. It was reported that one of the consulted scientists wrote an article about his findings, and it was published in an Italian journal of science. My interlocutor searched and searched for this article online but turned up nothing. He, therefore, claimed that the article did not exist. I, on the other hand, was not convinced. Unfruitful internet searches are not, by themselves, suggestive of anything. I eventually found the article through a contact I acquired in Italy. It was not easy. The article is now readily available on the relevant Wiki page thanks to my (low-tech) efforts.
The point is that I am sure you think your lack of findings is impressive, but it really is not.
To your credit, the strongest argument you have is the lack of cooperation from Dr. Castañón himself, but I am lead to think that he perceived your inquiry - its tone, wording, etc. - to be offensive and he responded in kind. This, too, is also an argument from silence.
In theory, no. However, just because anyone can do such a thing does not mean anyone (generally) does. As stated above, a relevent independent source has been adduced that has repeated his credentials, so my reliance on indirect evidence is now superfluous, but I will continue it here only to make a philosophical point.
To make this point, let us return to my earlier example. You meet someone, and you strike up a conversation with him.You learn he hs a PhD in forensic studies, and before your friendly chat, he was reading a lab report concerning a substance he is examing for a case. Now, you may say that anyone can possess such a document, and that may be true, but not anyone (generally) does. It is not exactly mainstream reading material. It is specialized. So some people are more likely than others to possess it. The probability of his being truthful is made higher in light of a corroborating indirect evidence. It paints a picture.
In short, your epistemology is simply flawed.
As shown above, false.
However, my previousl ine of argument is now superflous in light of TheHolyTrinity’s findings (and I am sure there are more such sources, I really have not bothered to look into the matter as closely as I have other aspects of the mystical phenomena).
)
(And it only took me a day. It would have taken only 30 seconds if I decided to actually read the posts in this thread before contributing.)
