Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Quote: Originally Posted by Steven Avery Hmmm... so any belief where "the scholars" go 80/20 can be represented as a fact in dialog ? What is your cutoff percent where you are not absolutely sure that the majority of "the scholars" are definitely giving you the truth. 65% 70% 51% ? Shalom, Steven Avery Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand the point? Scholarship moves by consensus. When you go against the consensus, you have an extra burden of explaining and justifying your position. While most people here are seeking some sort of truth, no one here should claim to have the Truth.

So I wondered what is "consensus" :

80/20 ?
99/1 ?
51/49. ?
other

Don't see an answer.

And I wondered when consensus is considered demonstrated fact ("proven") :

80/20 ?
99/1 ?
51/49. ?
99.99 to .01
100 to 0

Don't see an answer.

A third question .. does everybody always agree on who are the scholars to count noses ? And how to count them ? (And that the scholars are really even looking at the real issues in any sort of sensible and methodologically sound manner.)

The rest I will defer to the same discussion where Roger Pearse posted on other thread, the second post on the page, so as to avoid additional accusation implications of "deliberately misunderstanding" ... something.

Who were the Ebionites and Nazarenes
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=273137&page=2

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

A consensus is somewhere between 50 and 100 percent, but really, you know it when you see it.

Consensus is never proof. It is just the consensus. It is probably wrong at least some of the time. It is always a challenge to overturn the consensus.

No, of course not.

But the purpose of talking about a consensus is to avoid having to spend all of one's time debating a minority position, such as yours. You are free to believe that the same dude who wrote Corinthians wrote the Pastorals, but until you persuade a lot of people that you are correct, you have to do more than merely assert that to be the case.

spamandham

Yes.

No amount of scholarly consensus removes doubt, yet we use the word 'fact' quite regularly in spite of such doubt.

Really though you are consistently missing the entire point and presenting a strawman instead - a nice diversion tactic by the way, but dishonest if intentional.

Nowhere have I stated or implied that the scholarly consensus is always right.

Now with that sadly necessary shouting out of the way, can you please state why you do not feel those who discount the consensus should be expected to present more than hand waving?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

You claimed it was proven that certain epistles were frauds or forgeries. Your only support of that proof was a (non-existent) scholarly consensus.

Please explain that logic -- if you do not consider "scholarly consensus" as always right.

Or are the "right stuff" consensus points only those with which you happen to agree and wish to use in an argument.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Would you give an example of a 55% type consensus ?

Yes, when the skeptic agrees with it and wants to use it in an argument, he "sees it" and then ...

55% or 80% first becomes a "scholarly consensus" and then it leaps to becoming a demonstrable fact that is "proven" !

Exactly what occurred here.

Shalom,
Steven

jakejonesiv

Steven,

If it came down to 100% to zero scholarly consensus vs. the Holy Spirit said, you would go with the Holy Spirit, right?

Best,
Jake Jones IV

spamandham

...and it is. You don't seem to have a good grasp of what 'proven' means. It does not
generally imply the impossibility of error, particularly in regard to historical analysis.

If you wish to pretend there is no consensus on the matter, you're welcome to do so.

spamandham

Well, that's an interesting and reasonably well thought out hypothesis Jake, but how could we go about determining whether or not it's the right perspective?

...it might explain the interchangeability of 'we' and 'I' which is otherwise rather odd, if Paul is always present only in spirit, the 'we' referring to "Paul and I" and "I" referring only to Paul?

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

As we continue with Skeptics In Wonderland :

.. where x% of scholars --> consensus == demonstrable fact == proven

x = 50.01 % to 80% to 99%
.. depending on the skeptic - depending on the topic !
You know it when you smell it !


Proved..proven
3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests>

So when 51% or 80% of scholars agree on something -- if the skeptics like the scholar view -- to skeptics that is the equivalent of proving a theory or proving charges in court !! And they will defend that as a team, tooth and nail (that is the amazing part of all this, not the individual confusion, that happens .. it is that the team rallies together to insist).

.. where x% of scholars == consensus == demonstrable fact == proven

Fair enuf -- at least we know the moving goalpost definitions at FRDB,

"[Y]ou should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.
`I do,' Alice in Skepticland hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

Shalom,
Steven Avery

IDN - Internet Disclaimer Note
The above was a satirical presentation only, a docudrama, and not intended to be negative to any individual, moderators or administrators, readers or posters, banners or inviters, who are all clearly posting to the best of their ability, even if we disagree a smidgen at times and look at logical issues differently.

spamandham

Your behavior is deplorable, and you have no knowledge of decorum, nor willingness to change.

Shalom indeed.