FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page "Explanatory power" explained
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 2 of 10 1 2 34 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-13-2011, 08:48 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
That's cool by me. Is your answer to my first question, "No," then? Or what?
"What"; I'm not about to play your game and supply "YES" or "NO" answers to your loaded questions.
Well, then never mind. I was only trying to discourage what seems to be an unnecessary anti-canonical dogma.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:50 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
Whatever. Your "explanatory power" don't work.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:53 PM   #13
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Whatever. Your "explanatory power" don't work.
OK. Care to explain why not?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:55 PM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
This thread has nothing directly to do with BC&H.

We have to blame Peter Kirby for the thread's existence, as Peter is responsible for the existence of the Wiki page from where "best explanation" was derived.

The first of the seven conditions is just as important as the others:

[T2]The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)[/T2]
Crash, boom, like a lead balloon...
OK, what do you find wrong with that? Seems to me that it is a very basic necessity that your hypothesis must explain the evidence.
I don't have any problems with the basic views expressed by McCullagh. It's just that you have no "other statements already held to be true".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
The part you put in italics is seems to clarify that the hypothesis, all by itself isolated from all other knowledge, would not necessarily explain the evidence--you would kinda need a few other facts of the universe.
What you call "evidence" hasn't usually fit the criterion of what is "already held to be true" historically. You have not presented any historically held to be true statements in your analyses.

Try it. Go back to your failed prophecies thread and list the historical "observation statements".

You grabbed my initial post before I extended it.

And the thread still has nothing to do directly with BC&H.
spin is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:01 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
Whatever. Your "explanatory power" don't work.
OK. Care to explain why not?
Condition #1 one above. You got yourself a whole slew of falsehoods, and not a single trustworthy true premise on which to establish the argument you are attempting.

You still haven't told us whether you believe Moroni was a historical person?
Or how the Mormon religion could exist without a real historical Moroni?
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:02 PM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
OK, what do you find wrong with that? Seems to me that it is a very basic necessity that your hypothesis must explain the evidence.
I don't have any problems with the basic views expressed by McCullagh. It's just that you have no "other statements already held to be true".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
The part you put in italics is seems to clarify that the hypothesis, all by itself isolated from all other knowledge, would not necessarily explain the evidence--you would kinda need a few other facts of the universe.
What you call "evidence" hasn't usually fit the criterion of what is "already held to be true" historically. You have not presented any historically held to be true statements in your analyses.

You grabbed my initial post before I extended it.

And the thread still has nothing to do directly with BC&H.
"Explanatory power" is a criterion of a methodology formulated for New Testament historical scholarship, I use in part this criterion to promote my own decisions of belief, and it has been challenged by one of the members (and you), so I think it strongly relates to BC&H. I still don't quite understand your objection to the clause that you put in italics, sorry.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:04 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I still don't quite understand your objection to the clause that you put in italics, sorry.
You have no "observation statements". You have theories and palaver. I've plainly said it:

[T2]It's just that you have no "other statements already held to be true".[/T2]
Can I be plainer? You can't do history without any history up your sleeve.
spin is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:08 PM   #18
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
I still don't quite understand your objection to the clause that you put in italics, sorry.
You have no "observation statements". You have theories and palaver. I've plainly said it:

[T2]It's just that you have no "other statements already held to be true".[/T2]
Can I be plainer? You can't do history without any history up your sleeve.
I am sure it is my fault, and feel free to just ignore me (I feel no shame in ignoring you). I think it may help if you gave an example of what you think would count as an "observation statement" in the topic of New Testament history.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:10 PM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default
Nothing but a Holey book of failed magic tricks.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:13 PM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
OK. Care to explain why not?
Condition #1 one above. You got yourself a whole slew of falsehoods, and not a single trustworthy true premise on which to establish the argument you are attempting.
OK, so, what would you take to be a good example of an "observation statement" per the topic of New Testament history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
You still haven't told us whether you believe Moroni was a historical person?
Or how the Mormon religion could exist without a real historical Moroni?
I figure that my model of Moroni and the beginning of the LDS church is about the same as your own, and I am not sure what needs to be explained, but that can be left in the relevant thread if you want to speak more about it.
ApostateAbe is offline  
 
Page 2 of 10 1 2 34 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:22 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.