|
I agree mephisto. An argument should stand on its own merits, and frankly, whether the words of someone who died centuries ago can be manipulated into an effective support for a contemporary argument is irrelevant. Unless it can be shown that said figure was omnipresent and infallible. I don't need to know what "you" think george washington would've thought, because all that is is "your" out of context interpretation of something george washington said. How many mathematicians argue a proof based on their interpretation of what descartes might've thought? None. Because what descartes thought is completely irrelevant to whether said proof is valid or not. What some dead guy thought does not a convincing argument make.
|