What I proved was that your stated conditions were not sufficient. They are still not sufficient.
No, what you proved is that when faced with clear falsification, you shifted the discussion away from facts toward endless abstractions about “possibilities.” My stated condition—that truth claims must correspond to observable reality—is not insufficient; it’s the only basis for calling something factually true. Without it, any error could be endlessly rebranded as “maybe true from another view,” which destroys any meaningful notion of truth.
What I proved was that, with regards to the matter of truth, it is necessary to take account of the human perspective.
Taking account of human perspective explains why people might make a mistake. It does not change whether the claim they made was factually true. “Human perspective” can explain an error, but it cannot transform an error into truth. You are blurring cause with justification to avoid facing that the claim itself—“the hare chews the cud”—is biologically false.
What I proved was that the human perspective is always central in the matter of truth.
Wrong again. Human perspective is central to how we arrive at claims, but truth is not dependent on human perspective—it is dependent on reality. A mistaken belief can be sincerely held, but it remains mistaken. If your version of “truth” simply means “what someone might have thought at the time,” then you’ve abandoned truth entirely and embraced relativism.
You seem to recognize that the matter of the human perspective is a matter of interpretation. With regards to the matter of truth, the interpretation requires interpretation. If truth is a goal, then interpretation necessitates thinking in terms of the possibility of there being multiple possibilities.
Interpretation is necessary when facts are unclear. Here, the fact is not unclear. Hares do not regurgitate and rechew food. That is not a “possibility”—it is a verified biological reality. You are trying to smuggle interpretive charity into a case where the basic observable reality already rules out your claim. Again: explanation of error is not the same as dissolving the error.
You are almost seeming to recognize that truth depends on sufficient consideration of possibilities and that, if the consideration is in any way insufficient, then multiple possibilities persist and only together can they constitute truth.
No. If two “possibilities” are tested and one is refuted by observation, they do not both persist. Truth emerges precisely when weaker possibilities are discarded by evidence. Your model tries to preserve all possibilities forever, even after direct evidence closes the case. That isn’t pursuit of truth—that’s refusal to ever reach conclusions.
That "almost seeming" applies to you because, although you might have interpreted alternative perspectives, you have not analyzed alternative "arguments in their strongest form" nor have you actually refuted them (meaning that you have not established their irrationality or non-viability).
Alternative perspectives were addressed and refuted the moment the biological facts about hares were laid out. No regurgitation, no ruminant process, no cud-chewing. That is sufficient. You are asking for endless argument to continue possibilities even when the facts have already eliminated them. Strong argument ends when truth is established, not when imagination is exhausted.
For instance, you have said: "You then try to shift", "You’re trying to confuse categories", "when a text claims divine authority", etc. Those remarks exemplify your style of "argument". And those examples are sufficient to make the following point: those are examples of attributions, accusations, what have you. They are all interpretations. They do not follow unavoidably as the only possibilities left viable in their respective contexts.
They were not mere attributions—they were direct identifications of logical evasions you employed. When someone claims cud-chewing means one thing one moment and something else the next, that’s not a neutral “possibility”—it’s a bait-and-switch. Pointing that out is not a rhetorical trick; it’s part of honest critical thinking.
What those attributions and accusations show are the possibilities which you prefer. Nothing more substantial than that. And, of course, we frequently go with (or focus more extensively on) what is preferred. But what is really interesting in this discussion is that you go nowhere with your preference.
Again, truth isn’t about preference—it’s about correspondence to reality. I “prefer” the conclusion that matches the evidence. If you call that bias, then all science, history, and rationality would be bias too, because truth demands rejecting disproven ideas. You want endless open doors even when some have already been proven to lead nowhere.
You seem currently incapable of following the multiple possibilities. And maybe that is why you cannot allow for the logic which fails to confirm your bias, preference, prejudice, perspective, as the uniquely viable possibility and/or the only rational way to understand.
You are describing a refusal to accept finality even when reality speaks clearly. That’s not open-mindedness; that’s paralysis. There are not endless equally valid possibilities once evidence resolves an issue. Rational thought requires discarding what fails the test, not clinging to it because it’s still theoretically imaginable.
In light of there being multiple possibilities left after consideration of some context, if the goal is to establish incoherence or limits to truth, then the scope is widened.
Multiple possibilities only survive when none have been factually eliminated. In this case, one has: hares do not chew cud. That ends the possibility discussion about that particular biological claim. What you’re trying to do is keep breathing life into a corpse. That’s not logic—it’s refusal to deal with the consequence of being wrong.
Where this discussion gets almost actually interesting is with watching your opting to not follow up on (meaning stick with) DLH's own thought that it is possible that the cud statement is just flat out wrong.
DLH did not originally say “it’s just possibly wrong.” DLH tried very hard to defend the cud claim by citing old zoological misunderstandings and stretching the definition of chewing cud. Only after that defense collapsed did he and others start scrambling to talk about “possibility” and “perspective.” That retreat itself is proof that the original defense failed.
You do try to preclude the necessity for such follow-up with your insisted upon - and, frankly, narrow - way of considering "divine", but that just gets us back to the issue of insufficient consideration of possibilities. (By the way, and although I would ordinarily assume that by now this would be obvious, I will nonetheless be explicit: the critique in terms of possibilities is every bit as applicable to DLH's manner of expression. So, why do I not engage those thusly? Indeed. Why not? Hmmm. There are quite a few possible explanations.)
No, my framing of “divine” is not narrow—it’s consistent with the claim being made. When a text justifies divine law on a factual assertion, and the assertion is wrong, that’s a problem no amount of “possibility” talk can erase. You keep appealing to endless “possibilities” not because they are strong, but because you are unwilling to admit when one has been closed by evidence. As for DLH, the reason you don’t apply the same scrutiny is obvious: his original argument aligned with your need to preserve the text’s credibility. When that defense collapsed, you pivoted together into “possibility” and “perspective” talk to save face. It’s transparent. You protect allies in the discussion, not logic.
So, go ahead and have the last word. If you really, truly do not want to have the last word for the sake of having had the last word, then there is a different approach - a different style - which I could recommend. If you think you might find that fun or interesting. Then again, maybe I just seem to be a "snoot".
I don’t need the last word. The facts already had it. The Bible said hares chew cud. They don’t. Every attempt to avoid that—from DLH’s initial failed biological defense to your endless possibility-drifting—only confirms it more. No evasions change reality. That’s the final word.
NHC
