if you use the same criteria Bishop Kelly applies to the Thuc line and apply it to the Mendez line, you will see that the Thuc line is far more credible when it comes to validity.
Here's the main thing I don't get about this debate.
The argument from the pro Thuc people goes like this
1. If the Thuc line is doubtful, the Mendez line is also doubtful.
2. But the Mendez line is not doubtful
Conc. Therefore the Thuc line is not doubtful
But why couldn't one also reason it the other way.
1. If the Thuc line is doubtful than the Mendez line is also doubtful.
2. The Thuc line is doubtful
Conc. Therefore the Mendez line is also doubtful
This also seems to follow the logical rules. Why couldn't this argument be the correct one?