Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-02-2011, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Start with a set of criteria, which are easier to think about.

Richard Carrier in his PDF entitled “Bayes’ Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method — Adjunct Materials and Tutorial” presents an example List of Popular Historicity Criteria.

...

While the above series appears to be used only by HJ theoriests, can anyone suggest any other postulates used by today's theorists in this field? How many postulates Pn do you think there might be if they were listed out in any sort of comprehensive fashion?

These are not postulates. They are the special methodology of historical Jesus studies, and they are justified as based on common sense. The people who reject them do so based on logic.

The only comparable criteria used by some mythicists might be the notion that you find in Acharya S and others, that parallel stories are evidence of influence. I think most people would either reject this or qualify it.

I think that what you are after is not postulates, but methodology.

Doug Shaver · 11-03-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

What I would claim instead is that I am assuming nothing that is not also assumed by historicists,
but that they are assuming some additional things that I don't assume.

What are these additional things you dont assume, and what things do you assume?
Please elaborate.

Pete, I don't have time to compile those lists just for a forum discussion. Maybe I'd give it a shot if I were writing a book on my philosophy of history.

When I'm debating a particular topic, such as Jesus' historicity, any differences between my assumptions and those of my interlocutors should arise from our exchange of arguments. Any assumptions we happen to share will not be relevant to our disagreements.

If they assume something I don't, I bring it to their attention at the relevant point of the discussion. Usually, it turns out that their assessment of the documentary evidence assumes Jesus' historicity, which makes the historicity arguments circular.

If I assume something that they don't, they can likewise bring it up whenever they think it relevant. They don't usually do that, because in fact I don't assume anything they don't. Occasionally they accuse me of assuming the impossibility of miracles, but the question of whether miracles could happen is not relevant to any argument I make against Jesus' historicity, and when I explain this, the discussion usually moves on.

mountainman · 11-04-2011, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

What I would claim instead is that I am assuming nothing that is not also assumed by historicists,
but that they are assuming some additional things that I don't assume.

What are these additional things you dont assume, and what things do you assume?
Please elaborate.

Pete, I don't have time to compile those lists just for a forum discussion. Maybe I'd give it a shot if I were writing a book on my philosophy of history.

When I'm debating a particular topic, such as Jesus' historicity, any differences between my assumptions and those of my interlocutors should arise from our exchange of arguments. Any assumptions we happen to share will not be relevant to our disagreements.

If they assume something I don't, I bring it to their attention at the relevant point of the discussion. Usually, it turns out that their assessment of the documentary evidence assumes Jesus' historicity, which makes the historicity arguments circular.

If I assume something that they don't, they can likewise bring it up whenever they think it relevant. They don't usually do that, because in fact I don't assume anything they don't. Occasionally they accuse me of assuming the impossibility of miracles, but the question of whether miracles could happen is not relevant to any argument I make against Jesus' historicity, and when I explain this, the discussion usually moves on.

Doug, all this appears as handwaving.
Can you supply just one postulate?

Do you for example postulate that "Paul" was historical?

mountainman · 11-04-2011, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Start with a set of criteria, which are easier to think about.

Richard Carrier in his PDF entitled “Bayes’ Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method — Adjunct Materials and Tutorial” presents an example List of Popular Historicity Criteria.

...

While the above series appears to be used only by HJ theoriests, can anyone suggest any other postulates used by today's theorists in this field? How many postulates Pn do you think there might be if they were listed out in any sort of comprehensive fashion?

These are not postulates.

They were claimed as stated to be criteria.

Quote:

They are the special methodology of historical Jesus studies, and they are justified as based on common sense. The people who reject them do so based on logic.

I understand that. They seem to have related to textual criticism, and while they are presently assessed as criteria, I would expect that anyone who still wanted to use these dinosaurs would have to introduce them in some form of postulate.

Quote:

The only comparable criteria used by some mythicists might be the notion that you find in Acharya S and others, that parallel stories are evidence of influence. I think most people would either reject this or qualify it.

Creating a formal postulate is rather tricky business, we need only appreciate the value of Euclid to see this clearly. It seems to explain why there is no openly stated series of postulates in the business of BC&H.

Quote:

I think that what you are after is not postulates, but methodology.

The methodology as far as I am concerned is "Black Box" material. (See the diagram above). At a bare bones level, evidence items are fed into this black box along with the postulates to theorize a series of conclusions.

I think what I am after are some postulates. The OP seeks postulates. I seek postulates for the field of BC&H and find none other than those supplied above.

And many thanks for the few that you have already furnished on the fly.

mountainman · 11-04-2011, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I'd like to discuss postulates used in ancient history, since it appears to me that that all theories of christian origins which are compatible with the field of ancient history must start with postulates or hypotheses.

Why? Why can't somebody start without postulates?

Where would you go with no postulates?

Admittedly, someone new to the field, who has no background knowledge of the evidence items yet, perhaps might start out with no postulates, because they are engaged in a process of review.

However should they wish to develop a theory of their own, or champion an historical theory of christian origins put forward by another party (e.g. Eusebius) then it is natural that postulates would be required at some stage. It seems to be common sense, following the precedent set by Euclid, that after a review of the evidence, an investigator in most fields, should make a list of postulates (or hypotheses) that are useful in order to make sense of all the evidence available.

Toto · 11-04-2011, 07:06 AM

A postulate is an assumption, or an axiom. You keep listing things that should be conclusions from the evidence as "postulates" and now you are confusing "hypotheses" with postulates.

I must insist that you start with some source, some recognized definition, or I will assume that you are making this up and that this is not a serious thread.

J-D · 11-04-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I'd like to discuss postulates used in ancient history, since it appears to me that that all theories of christian origins which are compatible with the field of ancient history must start with postulates or hypotheses.

Why? Why can't somebody start without postulates?

Where would you go with no postulates?

Admittedly, someone new to the field, who has no background knowledge of the evidence items yet, perhaps might start out with no postulates, because they are engaged in a process of review.

However should they wish to develop a theory of their own, or champion an historical theory of christian origins put forward by another party (e.g. Eusebius) then it is natural that postulates would be required at some stage. It seems to be common sense, following the precedent set by Euclid, that after a review of the evidence, an investigator in most fields, should make a list of postulates (or hypotheses) that are useful in order to make sense of all the evidence available.

It doesn't sound like common sense to me. Mathematics, as a field of enquiry, works differently from any other, because it isn't based on evidence in the sense that other fields of enquiry are. In any field but mathematics I would expect evidence, not postulates, to be the starting point.

And once you have spent some time reviewing the evidence what you should be expected to produce are conclusions based on the evidence, which are so different from postulates that they're almost the opposite.

mountainman · 11-04-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A postulate is an assumption, or an axiom.

The WIKI page on axiom also includes the term hypothesis along with the term postulate:

Quote:

At the foundation of the various sciences lay certain additional hypotheses which were accepted without proof. Such a hypothesis was termed a postulate. While the axioms were common to many sciences, the postulates of each particular science were different. Their validity had to be established by means of real-world experience.

Quote:

You keep listing things that should be conclusions from the evidence as "postulates"

Read the following statement again carefully and look at the diagram I supplied to model the process. The postulates P1, P2, etc are different from the evidence E1, E2, etc which are different from the conclusions C1, C2, etc.

Quote:

Description of Process:

Evidence is listed with provision for new evidence and/or reclassification of existent evidence in a series E1, E2, E3, ...... En.

Postulates are listed with the requirement that they are not refuted by the existing evidence with provision for new postulates, and modification and/or removal of existing postulates .... Series P1, P2, P3, ... Pn

The evidence and the postulates are fed into a theory generator (black box)

The output is a list of theoretical conclusions C1, C2, C3, ... Cn.

Quote:

and now you are confusing "hypotheses" with postulates.

The terms "axiom" and "postulate" and "hypotheses" are reserved for things that are assumed, or taken for granted, in a process of theory. They are often interchangeable in common dialogue, but if this is confusing you or anyone else then we simply stay with the term postulate.

Quote:

I must insist that you start with some source, some recognized definition, or I will assume that you are making this up and that this is not a serious thread.

Try the WIKI page for axiom above.

mountainman · 11-04-2011, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I'd like to discuss postulates used in ancient history, since it appears to me that that all theories of christian origins which are compatible with the field of ancient history must start with postulates or hypotheses.

Why? Why can't somebody start without postulates?

Where would you go with no postulates?

Admittedly, someone new to the field, who has no background knowledge of the evidence items yet, perhaps might start out with no postulates, because they are engaged in a process of review.

However should they wish to develop a theory of their own, or champion an historical theory of christian origins put forward by another party (e.g. Eusebius) then it is natural that postulates would be required at some stage. It seems to be common sense, following the precedent set by Euclid, that after a review of the evidence, an investigator in most fields, should make a list of postulates (or hypotheses) that are useful in order to make sense of all the evidence available.

It doesn't sound like common sense to me. Mathematics, as a field of enquiry, works differently from any other, because it isn't based on evidence in the sense that other fields of enquiry are. In any field but mathematics I would expect evidence, not postulates, to be the starting point.

The field here in the OP is ancient history. As I have stated a review of the evidence is first conducted. In this case we are examining all the evidence relevant to the history of christian origins.

Quote:

And once you have spent some time reviewing the evidence what you should be expected to produce are conclusions based on the evidence, which are so different from postulates that they're almost the opposite.

Postulates are generally introduced in order to make sense of the evidence and they are assumed to be true for the purpose of ther argument. You will find that postulates are introduced in order to assist in the investigation and the various relationships between the evidence items.

Here is an example in an article by C. Behan McCullagh cited by William Lane Craig.

Quote:

7 Factors for Testing a Historical Hypothesis

The following is an excerpt from William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, p. 233:

"The process of determining which historical reconstruction is the best explanation will involve the historian's craft, as various factors will have to be weighed. In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions (or via: amazon.co.uk), C. Behan McCullagh lists the factors which historians typically weigh in testing a historical hypothesis:

1.The hypothesis, together with other true statements, must imply further statements describing present observable data.

2.The hypothesis must have greater explanatory scope (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than rival hypotheses.

3.The hypothesis must have greater explanatory power (that is, make the observable data more probable) than rival hypotheses.

4.The hypothesis must be more plausible (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths) than rival hypotheses.

5.The hypothesis must be less ad hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about the past not already implied by existing knowledge) than rival hypotheses.

6.The hypothesis must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beleifs (that is, when conjoined with accepted truths, imply fewer false statements) than rival hypotheses.

7.The hypothesis must so exceed its rivals in fulfilling conditions (2)-(6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis, after further investigation, exceeding it in meeting these conditions."

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

Toto · 11-04-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

NO YOU MAY NOT.

In the above quote, hypothesis is used in the sense of a theory or a model.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-04-2011, 07:06 AM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A postulate is an assumption, or an axiom. You keep listing things that should be conclusions from the evidence as "postulates" and now you are confusing "hypotheses" with postulates. I must insist that you start with some source, some recognized definition, or I will assume that you are making this up and that this is not a serious thread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.