Appeal: clarification
From Jay Dyer vs Pedro from Crucible Debate: Sola Scriptura and Protestantism.
- #15672:09:59upheld Jay Dyer epainos: clarification (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1 point.
“It just has to do with with knowledge. Our our doctrine of knowledge, how we know what we know, what do we know, can we justify our beliefs? It's a domain of philosophy, epistemology.”
Diogenes: Pedro had just redefined "epistemic" as meaning "the objective, it exists outside of our mind"; Jay stops and supplies the term's actual sense rather than letting the two men argue past each other on it.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Jay's consistent method throughout is a presuppositional/epistemic critique of sola scriptura (pressing Pedro on the "epistemic principle" behind his claims), and this line is a continuation of that method, not a departure — he is keeping the epistemic vocabulary precise so the exchange stays on point. Jay had just been pressed by Pedro's mistaken gloss on "epistemic" as meaning "the objective... outside our mind"; rather than let the two sides continue arguing past each other on a technical term, Jay stops, poses the question "What's epistemic mean?" and supplies the correct sense (doctrine of knowledge, justification of belief), which functionally serves the same clarifying purpose the label describes even though it is delivered as a correction rather than a request.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "direct answer", on the same ledger as the callout. Pedro had just asked "What's epistemic mean?" and Jay directly defines the term (knowledge, justification of belief, the domain of epistemology) rather than dodging or continuing to press his cross-examination point. It's a plain, responsive answer to the question actually asked.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay's recorded framework rests on presuppositional/epistemic argumentation about how the canon is known prior to appeals to the text; supplying the correct sense of "epistemic" against Pedro's conflation is consistent with, not a departure from, that standing line of questioning. Jay throughout the debate has repeatedly stopped to define terms precisely (e.g. distinguishing general vs. special revelation, ontological vs. epistemic categories) rather than let equivocal language stand; here, when Pedro asserts a mistaken definition of "epistemic" as meaning mind-independent objectivity, Jay supplies the accurate philosophical definition so the exchange can proceed on shared terms. The act is one of correcting/supplying a definition rather than requesting one, so "clarification" (which the rubric frames as asking for a definition) is not the cleanest fit, but the underlying philosopher-point (keeping the discussion from equivocating on a key term) is real.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.