No, it isn't. Please address my analogy. Fred's actual age is the "truth". Does Fred's age change depending on what different people believe about it? Its really quite a simple concept.

The first listed definition of "truth" at dictionary.com says:
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

Later it says, “the quality of being in accord with fact or reality.”

We can debate the meaning of the word "truth" til we're blue in the face, but I think a more productive process would be to discuss my analogy. Does Fred's age change depending on what you believe about it? Its plain to see that our beliefs have no effect on reality. Shouldn't truth be based on reality? I would hope so...

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp, I really don't know you at all but I find you to be an unpleasant person. This thread started out by asking for an OPINION, which can neither be right or wrong. I form my opinions based on the truth that I know. As someone already pointed out, my perception of truth may not be the same as your perception of truth, therefore we arrive at different conclusions. You then went on to lambaste me for having my opinion.

With regard to your analogy of Fred's age, I once took a quiz to determine my "actual" age based on my lifestyle habits. My chronological age is 37, but the quiz said my "actual" age is about 45, when those factors were taken into account. Which of those statements is the truth?... I suppose they both are. So perhaps it's not so simple as you sarcastically suggest.

As for the truth, I will quote from Robert Ingersoll and then I am done: "Every human being should be allowed to investigate to the
extent of his desire -- his ability. The literature of the world should be open to him -- nothing prohibited, sealed or hidden. No subject can be too sacred to be understood. Each person should be allowed to reach his own conclusions and to speak his honest thought. Every man should be true to himself -- true to the inward light. Each man, in the laboratory of his own mind, and for himself alone, should test the so-called facts -- the theories of all the
world. Truth, in accordance with his reason, should be his guide and master."

I think a more productive process would be for you to try working on your people skills.




[This message has been edited by katlynnhow (edited May 03, 2001).]

The Caesars (Julius and Augustus): 99.9+ %
Jesus: 80%
Hercules: 50%

I guess there is a difference between the probability that there is some historical someone or someones behind the personas, and the percentage of the attibutes/deeds of those personas which is true. In the second case, even the Caesars fall noticably below 100%, as evidenced by the miracles attributed to them. I'd rate Jesus at 10% and Hercules at <5% on this scale. Even famous living people can fall well under 100%.

Andy (PITW)

I’m sorry you’re disappointed with my “people skills”. If you’d cite some specific examples of instances where I belittled or insulted you, then perhaps you will have helped me take one small step toward improving this area. I really don’t know where I was out of line. If you or another party would kindly point out my blunder I would appreciate it. Do you define an “unpleasant person” as one who disagrees with you and attempts to show you why you’re wrong?

Peace,

Polycarp

You're welcome
How can you say I am proving your point? Let me remind you of your point: "If a proposition is considered to be more than 50% likely, we should believe it to be true".

How on earth do I prove your point with my example? No, we do NOT believe that both plans will succeed. We know that over time, a number of plans will actually fail. That is why we do the analysis in the first place! We hang on to our uncertainty because this allows us to make meaningful and useful decisions. If we replace the uncertainty by 'belief', we end up taking the wrong decisions - why is this so difficult to see?
This is irrelevant. I used the business plan uncertainty as an example of the error in replacing >50% uncertainty by 100% belief.
Don't think so...

fG

You're referring to future events in your analogy. These events are always unknown unless you believe in some sort of ability to predict the future. The truthfulness of the claims in your analogy is unknown until a later time. History (and Fred's current age) are in an entirely different realm because they deal with reality and not future unknowns. Now do you see my point?

We're talking about two different things. The future is always far more uncertain than the past or present. Since this discussion deals with events in the past, your analogy fails.

Peace,

Polycarp

DITTO to Polycarp on that last statement.

If the outcome is based on a statement with no fact, it can't be used. If I went with prop A with the outcome that I would meet a Unicorn, how can I possible use that to give any decision to the equation just because someone can't prove Unicorns don't exist and I would like for them to.

Probability that (Julius) Caesar existed: 99.9%

Probability that a single historical figure existed, who is the basis for the Jesus stories of the Bible: 70%

Probability that Hercules existed: I don't know enough about the Greek myths to really give an intelligent answer to this.

BTW, I'm an atheist.

Regards,

-Kelly

I think you can attach probabilities endlessly and this is related to higher order moments of probability distributions with the mean and variance (square of standard deviation) being the first and second order moments. For instance, you could take some data on something, build up a distribution, determine the mean and then wonder how sure you are that this really is the mean you would get with an infinite number of measurements. You can define an uncertainty related to the variance (spread) of the distribution and the number of samples. But how sure are you that this is the 'true' variance? You can provide an uncertainty for the variance in terms of higher order moments and so on. Your uncertainties have uncertainties, and it's uncertainties all the way down.

In the present circumstances, it is also relevant to give a range of values for the probability that Jesus existed. Imagine an extremely simplified scenario. Imagine that Jesus is a sphere. O.K. Seriously. Let's say that the only documents that existed were two from the first century, one which said that Jesus existed as a man, and one which said he was only a spiritual being. Let's say that they both look genuine, were written in a place where people should know, and so on. What probability would I give to the existence of Jesus as a human? 50%. And I would be pretty sure about my 50% estimate. I wouldn't think 75% would be a reasonable answer given the situation, so my spread in values would be small, perhaps 50% +- 5%.

The situation in reality is much more complicated and not only does it seem that there is a large continuum of conclusions, from Jesus definitely lived and did every single thing mentioned and has told people today personally that this is true to Jesus was a myth. Not only do people who study this issue disagree, but people like myself have to rely on the expertise of people who disagree with each other. And since I have been persuaded to believe things in the past I later rejected, my confidence in my conclusions in areas I haven't studied much is not high. Thus, I give Jesus a 50% +- 50% chance of existing, a spread that conveys my uncertainty in my ability to assign the probability that Jesus existed.

Well, that was fun.



[This message has been edited by PhysicsGuy (edited May 03, 2001).]

My mistake, Polycarp. I should have phrased it "I believe I am correct." You're right; if I were in the Amazon, I would have no information about snow. So, while I would be incorrect, I would not think I was.

That's my point. Regardless of whether or not I'm actually correct, in my mind I always am. I've spent many yesterdays being wrong! <G> but with the new info I think I'm right again.

(Now for the caveat: See the tall skinny guy with his tongue in his cheek! <G> I do think this way, but no matter how hard I try, it never comes across quite seriously. Oh, well...)

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. The things you mentioned as being "dogmatic" would be the same types of things I would label as dogmatic. When discussing people who were alleged to live 2000 years ago I don't think we should be "dogmatic". That was my point.</font>

I think we swimming at cross currents here, Polycarp. When I think of dogma I consider my Catholic Parochial school upbringing, and its insistence that 1) Jesus was just as presented in the canon; 2) there was no room for new evidence to alter that immutable fact.

I find some non-believers, sitting as firmly on their answer that no Jesus has ever existed, to be as dogmatically entrenched in their positions.

Being an agnostic I find myself breaking one of my own rules about history: I presumed, prior to beginning my quest (addiction) for information about the historical Jesus, that he was not divine. I hold that belief, as you would say, dogmatically. This is based on a prior rejection of the truth of the biblical OT God, for independent reasons, and since Jesus emerged from that theology, rests on that theology it follows that he was not divine. I say this breaks my own rule because I try to be as objective as possible and let the information take me where it will.

As an aside, I can rationalize my position by the old adage, which I do hold, that history and theology should not mix. It is the historian's job to gather as many facts as possible and present as probable an interpretation of them as he can. The theologians, then, can take that information and do with it what they will. Be that as it may...

I agree with you when you say that we shouldn't be dogmatic about people who are alleged to have lived two millennia past. However, given that we do have a wealth of information on first century Palestine and the ancient Mediterranean Basin; and given that we can, even as historians, assess the Christian theologies which emerged against their mother theology, Judaism, we can draw many conclusions which are supported by evidence (or lack thereof.) Once they are supported, they no longer fit the definition of dogma.


[This message has been edited by Polycarp (edited May 03, 2001).][/QUOTE]