Entanglement and Minimalism 1

Why is it not illicit (per se) to use a premise that an opponent grants, even if he doesn't agree with your conclusion, but illicit for minimalists to say that a scholar grants that "the disciples had resurrection appearance experiences" when the scholar doesn't mean the same thing by the phenomenology of such experiences? Aren't these argumentative moves the same thing? Wouldn't my scruples about minimalist uses of "experiences" and "group appearances" rule out *all* use of a granted premise by an opponent?The answer is no, and over the next few weeks, I'll be spelling out why.Here is the blog post version of today's content:https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2026/08/entanglement-concerns-dont-rule-out-use.htmlHere is an earlier video I did on entanglement:https://youtube.com/live/MUIJ97i--ic