5 Comments

  1. Jens Knudsen (Sili)

    The “Farrer-Goulder Law”?

    Reply
      1. Jens Knudsen (Sili)

        Ah. I thought as much. I would just never use “law” in that sense as a scientist. I think it’s better to say the Farrer Theory – with the work of Goodacre, the hypothesis has been tested, and found not to be wanting, so it makes sense to accept it. Provisionally, as always, of course.

        If I had to use “law” in this context, I’d rather say something like “The Synoptic Law”: The three first gospel share a verbal connection. It it is perverse to withhold judgement on this matter and suggest the overlap is due to chance.

        For me, a law is more of a systematised observation – without any underlying explanation. A law is – if anything – the first step on the scientific ladder.

        Reply

        1. You are absolutely correct – of course, I was being a bit polemic against those who view Q as unquestionable.

          Reply
          1. Jens Knudsen (Sili)

            Point taken. I just think it’s unfortunate to conflate observation and explanation.

Leave a Reply, Please!