Toto

More in the humanities - actually social science.

Do you mean the diagram in the OP, which is not actually in the OP but in post 16?

How should I address it? It does not look very helpful.

You have evidences and postulates in separate boxes, which feed into a "black box theory generator" which I assume means that you don't know how the theory is formulated, that turns out conclusions. What is this supposed to illustrate? How do you test this?

You claim that the "postulates" cannot be refuted by the evidence, but otherwise it's not clear where they come from.

J-D

I could be wrong, but I am prepared to hazard the guess that mountainman is suggesting that it is acceptable historical methodology to make up whatever story one prefers and do nothing to defend it beyond defying other people to give a mathematically certain refutation of it.

If that is not in fact the same as mountainman's position, perhaps some clarification would be in order.

mountainman

Deductive and inductive reasoning works inside the "black box theory generator" and operates on the INPUT of evidence and postulates (hypotheses) to produce output conclusions. The postulates are of two types (not represented in the diagram).

(1) Each evidence item En (which we may consider to be a registry item only) has with it associated a series of postulates (or hypotheses) not all of which may be agreed to by all the various theorists, but which neverthess effectively represent a "package" of hypothetical attributes related to each and every evidence item within the "Black Box".

(2) Additionally, general postulates (or hypotheses) are introduced into the list of postulates which are not necessarily related to the evidence items En to be discussed. In some cases these are derived from analysis of patterns in the overall evidence.

Thus deductive and inductive reasoning also works outside the "black box" in the identification, formulation, refinement and comparsion of the postulates in accordance to McCullaugh's cited analysis.

It illustrates that that INSIDE the "black box" at the detail level we are effectively dealing with a very very large number of detailed postulates (or hypotheses) about each item of evidence. The treatment by McCullaugh equally applies to the set of postulates which the theorist associated with each item of evidence to be discussed. The treatment by McCullaugh is not just applicable to the high level summary hypothesis. (See below). The theorists often then introduce general postulates to explain patterns in the evidence, and then at a higher meta-level summarise the theory (a massive collection of hypotheses) by one or more over-riding summary hypothesis.

It illustrates that what appears to many people on the surface as one (or a few) summary overview hypotheses (known on the surface as the theory or the major hypothesis) is in fact, under the surface, a very deep ocean of detailed hypotheses associated with the evidence, all of which are (in theory) continually compared with each other and ranked, tested against evidence, revised with new evidence, etc, etc in accordance to McCullaugh's process.


By paying attention to the detailed items of evidence, and to the series of detailed hypotheses which are directly associated with each and every item of evidence, the order of magnitude of the detail may be gauged.


Each of these postulates discussed above are invented or "supposed" by using deductive and inductive reasoning based on the evidence items and the conceptual framework of each of the theorists. The evidentiary rule that postulates cannot be refuted by the evidence essentially translates to the condition that postulates cannot be invented or supposed about the evidence items that are antithetical to postulates which are "already held to be true" about the evidence items, by the prevailing paradigm.

mountainman

See post # 63 above.

mountainman

This postulate seems to describe the hypothetical Canonical Jesus as defined by the authors of the books of canonical new testament. The century in which these books first became available for the edification of the Greek speaking citizens of the Roman empire in antiquity involves further postulates or hypotheses related to chronology.



Thank Christ.


I think there is a case to be made that the HJ postulate is a non-explicit and "Hidden Postulate" resident somewhere in the mass of postulates that are required in order to make sense of the evidence involved with the history of christian origins. The same applies for the MJ postulate, which is just the antithesis of the HJ postulate. The HJ (and its antithetical MJ postulate) appear on the surface as theoretical conclusions of a vast mass of research and examination of the evidence, but appearances can sometimes be deceiving.

I have far more respect for those theorists who clearly just started with the HJ postulate as an explicit working hypothesis, than for those theorists who conjure up an HJ as a theoretical conclusion based on an extremely small and very suspicious set of evidence and an extremely vast set of postulates related specifically to those evidence items.

I am sure that there may be theorists here who disagree with me on this issue because they think that their extremely vast set of postulates related specifically to that extremely small and very suspicious set of evidence items are accurate assumptions, and that the conclusion of the HJ follows - in fact may be logically inferred - from their postulates about the evidence.

Toto

Curiouser and curiouser.

But then they go into the "black box" where unknown processes occur . .
How many different definitions do you have for postulates?

Your diagram does not illustrate anything INSIDE the black box.

No, that is not how McCullaugh's process works. It operates at a high level only.

Is there any information in this sentence? If you pay attention to the details, you pay attention to the details?

:constern02:

Have you said anything here at all? Yes, theories are based on evidence, the evidence needs to be evaluated as to its trustworthiness and relevance.

Are you trying to confuse or clarify things? What conclusions would you draw from this?

mountainman

Thanks for pointing out a few of the "negative postulates" Shesh.

We might say they enjoyed (if they were lucky) a different conceptual framework of reality.



Emperor worship and cult was part of this "brainwashing". The argument from authority was a very pragmatic logical construct with plenty of weight behind it. The common people could often see the "logic" in adherance to the argument from authority.



What's changed Shesh?



Pete

mountainman

We may assume that deductive and inductive reasoning occurs INSIDE the black box, and operates on whatever is INPUT to the box, which is mainly postulates about the evidence items.

My claim is that McCullaugh's process operates at both the high level and at the detailed level. At the high level it operates for those high-level hypotheses by which the theorist draws together out of the entire work one or more high level hypotheses (which at this end become synonymous with theories). At the detailed level it can be seen to operate on the series of hypotheses which are associated with each and every detailed item of evidence.

We all know the devil lives in the details. In theories related to the historical appearance of Christian origins we need to take very particular care to deal with the devil in the details. We dont want to get surprised by the inadequacy of our own conceptual framework and our postulates regarding the evidence itself.




Clarify.


From post # 65, in response to aa5874, I think there is a case to be made that the HJ is not a theoretical conclusion as such, but a postulate which a non-explicit --- a "Hidden Postulate" --- resident somewhere in the mass of postulates that are required in order to make sense of the evidence involved with the history of christian origins. For more detail see above #65.

Toto

McCullaugh's set of criteria are used for testing models where we do not have good evidence, and we need to decide which model best explains what evidence we do have.


For some scholars, the Historical Jesus is explicitly an assumption. For others, it is a conclusion based on the evidence, such as it is.

I don't think that this thread has clarified anything.

mountainman

My claim is that is can be also applied to each and every individual item of evidence which is to be introduced into the argument. Take any item of evidence for example. Looking carefully at the detail, associated with any item are a series theoretical hypotheses or postulates.

For example take an epigraphic item "Inscription of Abercius" or a fragmentary manuscript item such as P.Oxy. 3035. Associated with these two example items of evidence is a vast series of discussion which is resolvable to a list of postulates or hypotheses held about that one single item.

My claim is that McCullaugh's set of criteria are also used for testing models of the hypotheses which are put forward to deal with each separate item of evidence. Its equivalent to the microcosm and the macrocosm working with the one set of criteria.



Perhaps it has not clarified anything in your mind, but I cannot really speak for others. The discussion has certainly clarified some things for me, for which I am thankful.


BTW, how do those scholars who treat the HJ as an assumption view the attempts of the other scholars to reconstruct an HJ as a conclusion based on the evidence, such as it is? And vice versa? Do you happen to know?