1

I have used an idea as a presupposition in one question and then examined the details of that presupposition in another.

"Was it a dishonest act?" presupposes that Jacob was backsliding after his transformation in his wrestling match.

"Gift or slaughter" examines the question of Jacob's reformation. The scores on this one are not automatically related to the other article.

When someone reads "Was it a dishonest act?" what tags, links, footnotes, etc should be used to point the reader to the article that validates or discredits the presupposition?

In this case, whether Jacob was backsliding or not does not affect the Drash of "Was it a dishonest act, the forfeiture alone is sufficient to link the portion without knowing his motivation. But having a link which examines the issue implied would be helpful.

Since it is not important to the matter, I would expect to eventually rewrite "Was it a dishonest act" so that a question of Jacob's motivations do not distract from the main article.

What tags, links, footnotes, etc should be used to point the reader to the article that validates or discredits the presupposition, in order to more tightly couple the relationship between the articles?

Is there a way to colorize or otherwise indicate the scores from the close examination of the idea, to those article which depend upon them being valid?

1
  • 1
    It would help if the first mention of the questions were links. I would add them, but I don't yet have enough reputation here. – jimreed Oct 25 '11 at 12:05
4

Loose please!

It's ok to, and I think even useful to, link to related posts using a footnote in the question (or natural text links in the body if appropriate) or comments, but questions should always also stand on their on right. It should not be necessary to read another question or answers in order to understand a question or answers.

That said, of course all questions will make some presuppositions and it is unnecessary to have all of these resolved in order to ask. If you happen to know of a related question that deals with the presuppositions that's great to link to, but all the supporting questions are not required.

7
  • If you had a mechanism for tightly coupling them you would have a killer app. A logic map would show where the whole arguement falls apart. It would be a great hosting site for formal, logical debate of issues. – Bob Jones Oct 24 '11 at 17:52
  • @BobJones: Such a project to map dependencies in theological & hermeneutical systems exists. See The Orthotomeo Project. However what we get here is a QnA platform that we have to adhere to pretty closely A) in order to be accepted by the hosting site and B) make best use of the strengths it has. – Caleb Oct 24 '11 at 17:57
  • Cool. You don't have to boot me... you just lost me ;-) – Bob Jones Oct 24 '11 at 18:10
  • 3
    Wait! Come baaaaaack! – Caleb Oct 24 '11 at 18:50
  • I checked out the site. It has great potential. So, you see the interaction in "Gift or slaughter". I used the Greek rhetorical trick of concept feeding in the question. It throws the topic off course discussing things about Jacob etc, when the core question is if God's moral view of the narrative can be discerned and by what hermeneutic. So the QA manaul for evaluating content, which there won't be one, would help question reviewers and authors identify such slight of hand, and edit the question to focus on the core issue. Jon mentions an agenda, ...probably his way of flagging it. – Bob Jones Oct 24 '11 at 23:07
  • The excitement surrounding it elicited an excellent answer. So people who come solely to throw monkey wrenches may actually be doing the site a favor. Answers.com often has really dorky answers, which baits others to generate something better. In advertising "Speak well of my son, or speak ill of him...just speak of my son". – Bob Jones Oct 24 '11 at 23:12
  • I had a winky... take a deep breath ;-) – Bob Jones Oct 24 '11 at 23:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .