@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:In this case it was the other guy asserting that my explanation was ad hoc. He was just upset that I had the effrontery to question his assertion.
If you think you can upset me, you're flattering yourself. Rather, I was stunned at your reading (in)comprehension level. I asked if you wanted me to find another example of your
ad hoc rationalizations, and you somehow twisted that into "FBM requested." You have done nothing to address the characterization of your reasoning as
ad hoc.
Leadfoot wrote:
...
Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:3-10King James Version (KJV)
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Will give it a try. Not easy in isolation because after all, my contention is that the whole thing has to make sense rather than isolated passages or 'ad hoc' as you say.
To make sense of this passage the background of the church at Corinth should be considered. This church was among the most messed up at the time. They had interpreted 'the truth shall set you free' as being free of all rules, order, restraint, etc. They were the hippy church of that day. Not that believers should be rigid followers of a list of laws but if you believe the whole 'God' story then obviously you have to accept that there is an intended order to things.
Other churches he wrote to had erred in the opposite way and gone totally legalistic and he scolded them for that. This doesn't make the things he wrote contradictory. They addressed different people and problems.
Here Paul is trying to re-establish some appropriate order in the Corinthian church. The head covering thing was the symbol of some of that order in those days and culture. The problem we all have is the use of it and the principle behind it to subjugate women.
I can only explain it by metaphor. The relationship between a man and woman in a relationship is like that of pilot and copilot in an airplane. They are equally qualified to fly the plane but someone has to be 'the captain' and decide who is to be at the controls at any given time. If they both try to take the controls it would be a disaster. It is the responsibility of the captain to divide the responsibility of flying the plane appropriately. If he is a 'control freak' and only lets go of the controls when he needs to piss, the copilot will feel disrespected, un needed, resentful, etc. If the pilot abrogates his authority and has the copilot do all the work while he relaxes and sips coffee, the copilot will feel used and taken advantage of.
The head covering in those days was just the 'insignia' on her uniform acknowledging her 'rank' as copilot and her partner's rank as pilot. It didn't mean she was incompetent to fly the plane.
Why did God make the man the default pilot? I don't know, but it seems to be the natural order of things. Having been paired up with 8 different 'flight crews' I learned by experience rather than faith that unless this partnership has a designated PIC (pilot in command), it does not work.
As in all things, there are exceptions. My second ex wife and current business partner is a natural born pilot. She eventually married a man who was perfectly happy as copilot. And I'm not being critical of the guy.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
And now can you answer the actual question as to why your take on it isn't an
ad hoc rationalization?
Quote:Ad hoc is a fallacious debating tactic (also called a "just so story" or an "ad hoc rescue") in which an explanation of why a particular thing may be is substituted for an argument as to why it is; since it is therefore not an argument, it is not technically a fallacy, but is usually listed as one because it is a substitution for a valid argument. It is similar in form to moving the goalposts, but protects the argument by adding additional speculative terms rather than changing the meaning of existing ones.
Users of ad hoc claims generally believe the excuses and rationalisations serve to shore up the original hypothesis, but in fact each additional speculative term weakens it. This is both due to the speculations being based simply on the faith that there might be an explanation, and because each additional term makes the hypothesis weaker according to the principle of parsimony.
"Possibly," "probably," "maybe," "might" and "could" are all good markers of ad hoc claims.
[edit]Examples
Many creationists and woo pushers use ad hoc explanations to magic away evidence that contradicts their underlying beliefs, rather than revising those beliefs. For example, many alternative medicines have been disproven or shown to be mere placebos, but believers will make up excuses as to why the controlled and properly conducted experiment was wrong. Some homeopaths, for instance, will cry that the succussion process was carried out incorrectly (as if 9 bangs rather than 10 makes all the difference), or that (inexplicably) it is impossible to do a "double-blind" test on homeopathy. Creationist explanations for how the Grand Canyon is explained via the global flood while similar canyons aren't seen everywhere are hilariously varied and entirely ad hoc. This is also common in Biblical inerrancy arguments, where speculative terms will be added as it becomes clear that the plain text is contradictory or otherwise undesirable. This rather obviously changes the Bible from "inerrant" to "inerrant if you make a great many specific assumptions in no logical pattern."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc
