<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><p style="font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(16, 21, 23); color: rgb(16, 21, 23); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, blinkmacsystemfont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 24px; line-height: 1.7; padding: 0px;">A poster said:While Torah intuition may lie beneath their rulings, the vast majority of rabbinic decisions are supported by source-based evidence. And if a refutation is brought to light, the theory is abandoned with no source left unexplained.</p><p style="font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(16, 21, 23); color: rgb(16, 21, 23); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, blinkmacsystemfont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 24px; line-height: 1.7; padding: 0px;">Me-IMHO this is a bit of an oversimplification -ISTM that if a refutation is brought to light but no other theory suggests itself which more fits the data, the approach is to minimize the offending source or read it somewhat tortuously. The interesting question to me then is why does one data point offend one of the disputants more than the other (and vv). Thoughts?</p><p style="font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(16, 21, 23); color: rgb(16, 21, 23); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, blinkmacsystemfont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 24px; line-height: 1.7; padding: 0px;">Kt</p><p style="font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(16, 21, 23); color: rgb(16, 21, 23); font-family: -apple-system, system-ui, blinkmacsystemfont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 24px; line-height: 1.7; padding: 0px;">Joel Rich </p><div dir="ltr"></div></body></html>