Steven Avery

Maybe some apologists do. Clearly a track record of historical accuracy is significant. An accurate text is more likely to be consistent.

A historically inaccurate text of course is likely to have more contradictions. Unless it had a really crafty designers with lots of knowledge and insight trying hard to cover and falsify. Then it might be historically inaccurate yet internally consistent, as a work of fiction, as some mythicists look at the Bible.

However that was never the theme of the thread, whether a harmonization "should be accepted" or whether "the texts are historically accurate". The theme of the thread was what is the proper usage of the concept of "contradiction" (meaning internal contradition) in looking at a writing and what is the "burden of proof" that such a contradiction exists.

Nobody seems to want to address this. Is there actually any difference in the view of the (aspiring) professional historian of these terms than that of the logician ? Where ? Why ? Who ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sauron

You are assuming that there are two different burdens of proof here, or that historians would agree with you that the two situations are not handled the same way (i.e., skeptically and with a critical mind). But you have not presented any such evidence to support your assumption.

If you have evidence that respected historians operate with two sets of burden of proof here -- one for historical accuracy, and another for internal contradictions -- then by all means present such evidence.

But absence any such proof coming from you, I see no reason to accept your assumption and multiply standards of proof here.

Sauron

Josephus does not help you. Seeing both kinds of contradictions (historical and internal) is easy. That does not support your assumption that historical examination has two distinct burdens of proof, however.

Steven Avery

Sauron, please. I never even remotely discussed here the "burden of proof" for historical inaccuracy. Only for internal contradiction claims.

You continually falsely apply words and assumptions to me that I have never stated. And then insult based on your own inability to read and think clearly. So try to speak accurately if you think there should be more dialog.

Josephus was not meant to "help me". Simply a good, more neutral, example used to unravel word and concept confusions and mixups on the thread. Which we have aplenty.

Shalom,
Steven

Sauron

You said that there were two different burdens of proof. Here are your words, since the half-life of your memory is considerably shorter than that of the average person:

You are confusing the burden of proof of historical accuracy in with the burden of proof of a supposed internal contradiction.

All I'm asking for is proof that historians researching ancient text operate with two, instead of one, such burdens. Do you have such proof?

Or was that just another ad hoc claim that you pulled out of your ass to confuse and distract the debate?

Good. Because quoting from him does not demonstrate a difference in the burden of proof for (a) historical accuracy vs (b) internal contradictions. Glad we agree.

So when:

1. you claimed "You are confusing the burden of proof of historical accuracy in with the burden of proof of a supposed internal contradiction."
2. And then RED DAVE told you "With regard to historical research, involving matters of fact, these are, essentially the same thing."

We can both now agree that:

3. Your next response, i.e. "Not at all", plus some examples from Josephus -- was simply wrong and/or you were just making up stuff on the spur of the moment.

Steven Avery

Ok, apologies. In this case I did talk about a "burden of proof" of historical accuracy. To completely distinguished it from internal contradictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron All I'm asking for is proof that historians researching ancient text operate with two, instead of one, such burdens.

And as I have pointed out numerous times, nobody has found a historian who talks about "burden of proof" of claimed and conjectured internal contradictions. Outside the normal logical constructs.

If a historian says in one place A occured five years after B, and then he says A occured 8 years after B, then a good case has been made. And it would be time to look at a possible explanations (e.g. maybe the two A's are not really identical). If the claim is "contradiction" the "burden of proof" is on the accuser.

Whether there is actually a "burden of proof" concept for historical accuracy is also a good question (despite my use of the phrase for distinguishing). There we are dealing more with probabilities and likelihoods than "contradiction" and "burden of proof". And sometimes something is flat-out false without controversy. So my use of the phrase "burden of proof" in the context of "historical accuracy" to distinguish was dubious and now fully retracted.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sauron

So you're claiming that no historian has ever discussed where the burden of proof lies, whenever an internal contradiction is discovered in an ancient text?

This presupposes a desire to make the text be correct - to intentionally search for ways to keep it from being judged contradictory.That's the point of view of a religious investigator, not a proper historian. It would be preferable to simply view the text critically, and letting the data take you wherever it leads you.

Why would you take such an approach, as opposed to simply saying "Huh. Whaddya know? Since A and B cannot be both 5 years apart as well as 8 years apart, I guess the text contradicts itself."

If the text presents an apparent contradiction, I don't see why the "accuser" has any burden of proof at all.

It seems to me that the burden of proof falls upon anyone who wants to claim that, in spite of the apparent contradiction, the text is still reliable.

Thank you.

Steven Avery

You were the one who continually falsely claimed that I was talking about historians even when I carefully explained to you that logic is the field of contradictions and burden of proof.

So if you want to make historians the contradiction and burden of proof playing field then you should supply an example of .. something about historians. If not, drop the whole pretension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron Why would you take such an approach, as opposed to simply saying "Huh. Whaddya know? Since A and B cannot be both 5 years apart as well as 8 years apart, I guess the text contradicts itself."

Precisely, it would be a guess, maybe one that fits well your personal philosophy, but it would not be science and it would not be logic. Not until you looked at it closely. Especially if it was known that there was an interesting and substantive response to the claim.

Example: look at the glib Richard Carrier claim of a contradiction on Simeon and Anna and Herod. Nobody even remotely defended that nonsense. This shows the pitfall of a "contradiction" mentality when there is a poison the well agenda. Reason and sense is lost. Animus to the Bible uber alles.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sauron

You made claims about the historical process. Period. I merely asked you to back them up. You couldn't do so.

Now you're doing it again - making claims about historians, and what they do or how they do it. Can you back it up this time?

No, it's not a guess. That was a folksy way of presenting an argument, whose more rigorous format I also presented -- but which you ignored:

This presupposes a desire to make the text be correct - to intentionally search for ways to keep it from being judged contradictory.That's the point of view of a religious investigator, not a proper historian. It would be preferable to simply view the text critically, and letting the data take you wherever it leads you.

You deliberately dodge the issue: if there is an apparent contradiction, why does the person pointing out that contradiction bear the burden of proof? As opposed to the person who wants to claim the text is still trustworthy, in spite of the apparent contradiction? You have given no reason -- other than your personal bias and religious preference -- for such a position.

You skipped answering this last time. Did you think I would not notice that?

Doug Shaver

On top of several years of independent study in the principles of logic, I have take three college-level courses in logic during just the past year. We could argue the semantics of my statement, but I'm not going to in this thread, and as far as I'm concerned there is nothing else to argue about.