Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-22-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Doug presents it as an hypothesis. In case you have not noticed the many dictionary citations by myself and others in thiis thread, I am accepting an equivalence between the two terms hypothesis and postulate.

You were, but he wasn't. He was not presenting it as a postulate in the relevant sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Doug presents a postulate for Paul at post # 217.

He does not present it as a postulate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Is this unsuitable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

I think it more likely that Paul really existed than that he did not exist.That hypothesis, in my judgment, underlies the most parsimonious accounting of all the extant evidence relevant to the provenance of the documents generally referred to as the Pauline Corpus.

Doug Shaver · 11-23-2011, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Doug presents a postulate for Paul at post # 217. Is this unsuitable?

No, I am not presenting anything there as a postulate.

You can call it anything you want, but I will thank you very much not to intimate that I agree with your terminology when you should know damn well that I don't.

Doug Shaver · 11-23-2011, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Thank you. I find that persuasive.

You are entirely welcome.

Toto · 11-23-2011, 09:10 AM

So is this all based on a confusion over the meaning of postulate?

J-D · 11-23-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Everyone who has disagreed with you has been very specific.

At the same time they have also been quite vague on specific issues in question, namely the choice underlying the selection and formulation of postulatory statement that are to serve in representing the evidence items themselves in discussion. For example, the postulates you provided above for the issue related to the authenticity of "Paul", were shown to be vague and to be reduceable to the postulate "Paul was either a genuine historical character or maybe he wasn't." What do you expect to learn by employing this specific postulate aside from exercising vagueness?

Would you like to point out where I labeled that statement a postulate?

The exchange covers posts # 85, 87, 90, 91, 94, 95 and 100.

In the final post #100:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

When you write of the possibility that someone forged the letters of Paul above, you seem to treat Paul as an historical person. When I write of the possibility that "Paul" was forged, I do not necessarily assume that "Paul" was historical. I will allow as a possible postulate that "Paul" was just a fabricated name upon which to hang a host of epistles - that "Paul" may not have been a figure of history at all.

That is a third possibility -- that someone wrote letters and attributed them to a non-existent person.

All these possibilities are essentially possible postulates that people can make about one item of evidence - the pauline letters (nb: some people can examine each verse of these letters as separate items of evidence). There are obviously many more possibilities. Shesh adds one below.

You did not respond to this. You seem to be taking the position that these "possibilities" are NOT postulates, and I disagree with that position.

I think it is probably more nearly accurate to say that Toto is saying that those possibilities are not, in your words, 'essentially' postulates.

If "these possibilities" are not postulates or hypotheses then what are they?

Statements which people might possibly arrive at by simple postulation of them (although it's not recommended, for reasons of parsimony, as I previously mentioned)

This translates to the scenario in which we have statements derived from simple postulation that represent possibilities that you are reticent to describe as postulates. I see.

No, you don't. What is at issue is not my reticence but your misunderstanding. By definition, statements derived from postulates are not themselves postulates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

but which they might also arrive at in other ways.

Such as?

In any way in which people might arrive at a statement. You do understand, don't you, that 'postulate' is not a synonym for 'statement', and that there is a distinction between statements which are accepted as postulates and statements which are accepted for other reasons? How do you think people arrive at statements apart from by postulating them?

J-D · 11-23-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I do not think that the existence of Paul is a suitable subject for a postulate.

Why ever not?

For considerations of parsimony. Postulates should be minimised, which means they should be as generalised as possible.

You seem to be saying that because of parsimony we dont need to question the assumed truth of the postulate that "Paul" was a genuine and authentic historical figure.

No, I didn't say that. Toto said that the existence of Paul is not a suitable subject for a postulate, meaning that we should neither postulate it nor postulate the reverse.

Sort of like a transcendental truth?

No, not like a transcendental truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

That is the parsimonious approach.

Thou shalt not postulate about that which is the subject of FAITH and already held to be TRUE?

No, that is not the parsimonious approach; nor do I advocate any approach that includes holding anything as true on the basis of faith.

J-D · 11-23-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So is this all based on a confusion over the meaning of postulate?

No. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, mountainman's use of the word 'postulate', we still have the problem that mountainman endorses the comparative evaluation of 'postulates' in theory but evades it in practice; also the problem that mountainman, for reasons never adequately explained, regards an intentional unparsimoniousness in postulation not only as desirable but as necessary.

mountainman · 11-23-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

(50%) The chances that X is the case are about even....................The chances that Y is the case are about even (50%)

The intermediates are you expressed them above are impossible because you are saying that something is both true and false at the same time.

You are mistaken. At no point did I say that.

Above.

mountainman · 11-23-2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

If therefore the evidence is not mute, and is in direct communication with each investigator then it may obviously be saying entirely different statements to each of them.

Perhaps. But if the evidence tells different people different things, that is not the same as the evidence telling us nothing.

The evidence can in some cases tell some investigators nothing.

If it tells them nothing then, by definition, it is not evidence in that context.

When one and the same evidence item tells some investigators something and other investigators something else and yet other investigators nothing at all, it remains the one evidence item in the context of the investigation.

mountainman · 11-23-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug at post 217

I think it more likely that Paul really existed than that he did not exist.That hypothesis, in my judgment, underlies the most parsimonious accounting of all the extant evidence relevant to the provenance of the documents generally referred to as the Pauline Corpus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Doug presents a postulate for Paul at post # 217. Is this unsuitable?

No, I am not presenting anything there as a postulate.

You can call it anything you want, but I will thank you very much not to intimate that I agree with your terminology when you should know damn well that I don't.

So if I were to agree in the statement immediately before the words "That hypothesis", that Doug is actually presenting not a postulate but an hypothesis, then you would have no need to thank me negatively?

/

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

11-23-2011, 09:10 AM	#254
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So is this all based on a confusion over the meaning of postulate?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.