Lord Wong- Is this a logical axiom?

[Vympel]

"That which proves too much proves nothing at all"

Is it?

[Colonel Olrik]

"That which proves too much proves nothing at all"

Is it?

It's more like an idiotic made up phrase said by a pretensed philosopher.

It's in the line: Being rational and logical is no good. The true wise sees beyond logic, bla bla. Science is limitating, bla bla.

[Vympel]

Don't presume too much

The context it was made in was in critique of Biblical aplogetics- as in, if I can use your approach to argue that the miracles in the Bible are true, then what's to stop me from saying that the miracles in Tacitus and Suetonius are true? Or any miracles for that matter- I think Farrell Till said it (Skeptical Review editor). He seems like an intelligent man- his jousting with Biblical inerrantists is extremely funny.

Edit: with emphasis

If Hutchinson were a dog, he would probably entertain himself by chasing his tail, so let's work our way though his mumbo jumbo by first noticing that he is begging a question he is obligated to prove. He said that "the historical account of God's actions, as recorded in the Bible, is true," so he apparently was not content to begin with just one a priori assumption, i. e., what the Bible says is true, but he tried to sneak another one in too, i e., the Bible is a "historical account of God's actions." By the same "logic," a Mormon could prove that the Book of Mormon is a "historical account of God's actions," and so all miracles recorded in it actually happened, and a Muslim could prove the same thing about the Qur'an. Like most biblical inerrantists, Roger Hutchinson seems unable to grasp the truth of the logical axiom that says what proves too much proves nothing at all. I have yet to hear a biblical inerrantist explain the value of "a priori assumptions" that could be used to prove the historical accuracy of any and all miracle claims, both ancient and modern. Perhaps Hutchinson would like to give it a try.

[Colonel Olrik]

Don't presume too much

The context it was made in was in critique of Biblical aplogetics- as in, if I can use your approach to argue that the miracles in the Bible are true, then what's to stop me from saying that the miracles in Tacitus and Suetonius are true? Or any miracles for that matter- I think Farrell Till said it (Skeptical Review editor). He seems like an intelligent man- his jousting with Biblical inerrantists is extremely funny.

Hum.. My mistake. I read that as the person. Like, the person who proves to much ends up with nothing.

When applied to an argument, it actually makes some sense. If your argument serves to prove everything, like God created everything and that's it, then it's scientific use is null.

[Darth Wong]

"That which proves too much proves nothing at all"

Is it?

It may be true in this case (a bizarre piece of "logic" which defines proof in such a manner as to be trivial), but it is not an axiom because it's too vague. If the wording were made more specific, ie- "an argument which proves everything proves nothing", then it would be more of an axiom.

[Vympel]

Gotcha. I suppose Till was just being colloquial then. Thanka!