Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-03-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

On the contrary, Pete's theory is falsifiable, but he arbitrarily rejects the evidence against it.

I have created and maintained an index of apparent exceptions
raised against the theory in terms of archaeological evidence.
We have seen the evidence of Dura-Europa go to a poll.
The results were not entirely one sided.

I would like to assure you and others that
1) I treat the theory as completely "falsifiable" and
2) I am not arbitrarily rejecting the evidence against it.

I am seeking the actual "historical truth" of christian origins
and the new testament body of literature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOMIGLIANO

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

In my arguments here I have intended to abide by this above advice
by AM, since the idea itself is new and falsifiable. I have always
avoided the idea of "proven". Judgement should be in obeyance.
Hypotheses and theories can only be entertained when the
reactionary judgement is in obeyance.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.