Q, etc.

I don't know whether to be concerned or amused by Mr. Swain's
response to my post. Moi, an advocate of orthodoxy? I've not heard
that for a while. I find every attempt to get behind the text,
including this one, hopelessly caught up in one conjecture after
another, as this thread amply demonstrates. Is it my self-admitted
partiality that convicts me of condescension? Should I pretend to
be objective? But if this issue is primarily a *theological* one,
then that objectivity is dishonest, no? (And my theology is hardly
orthodox.) I can't tell whether Larry opposes my reference to the
philosophy of science, or whether he claims that Kuhn et al. are on
*his* side, not mine. What can I say? Indeed, it is the questions
that we ask that determine what *counts* as evidence, but what
determines the questions that we ask? Ie, what determines that we
see X as a problem, but not Y?

George Aichele