I would argue that you can argue from a position of ignorance, because logic would dictate that if you are unaware of your ignorance, you are therefore not ignorant in you thought or belief. Also, logic does not equal a win lose scenario. Win/lose is only a possible outcome, not an end result. I digress, it is ultimately defiant of us to the greater utility of this forum to continue to debate logic. Clearly you would then see the logic in this argument being won or lost, as we have circumvented what is of greatest utility to anyone of us or all of us. As this forum also has rules, we even fail in the acceptance of rule utilitarianism because we have all high jacked the OP's thread.

The more important argument of logic here is:
If no one is around, and god is dead, can the tartan be kirked? (no offense to anyone's spiritual/religious beliefs, it's a philosophy joke)



Quote Originally Posted by artificer View Post
Unfortunately, in a logical argument, you cannot argue from a position of ignorance.

To argue that because there is a LACK of evidence to disprove doesn't equate to proof (or a 'win') in logic. "Cannot disprove" isn't a logical position. If you are proposing something, the burden of proof falls on your head, there is no burden to disprove.



That said;
From a purely deductive standpoint, and using countries in rural Europe as a model, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that on certain occasions (clan wars, conscription, long and dangerous journeys) that a Scottish wife might take some small memento of her beloved husband or son to the Kirk for a blessing.

Since many in the highlands were quite poor, a token might be as small as a lock of hair, or indeed a scrap of fabric from their clothes (POSSIBLY tartan).

Things like this were done (and probably still are in some places). What is missing here is ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that it was done in any organized fashion (ie "The Kirking Of The Tartan").

More damning still is the fact that Highlanders, by all historical accounts, didn't lend to their tartans the meaning that would be assigned later in Victorian times.

Thus, we COULD infer that while tartan MIGHT have been blessed in isolated cases, Tartan is unlikely to have been blessed en-mass (notice that I didn't say WASN'T).

I don't think anybody is denying that a Kirking couldn't have happened, somewhere along the way, I believe that most are saying that this particular service, especially in it's current form, originated in America.
This is based on all available historical evidence.




"Truth" is for Religion or Philosophy. Fact for the sciences. Conclusions can change given new information. As for History, you are talking about interpretations of facts.

A huge victory for one side may be an horrible betrayal and slaughter to the other. The fact that a battle happened on a given day is THE fact, everything else is POV.
Did a battle happen, or was it a skirmish? Fistfight? Scuffle? How you define a battle may differ from what everyone else thinks, therefore, to you, your thoughts are truth, to others not so. Your thoughts might even be outright lies, and intentional at that. Once again proving that the truth is intangible, everything is reported with prejudice and predetermination, and cannot be true.