avi

No.
It is NOT correct English, to write "falsified".
You may wish to express the same sentiment this way:
Is it possible that MM's theory can also be refuted by other evidence?

I understand that you are simply repeating the same word, the fault is not your own. Spin has employed a not so subtle psychological trick to reinforce his own preconception, that MM's theory is bogus, by writing "falsified", to encourage forum members to imagine that the theory itself is FALSE. To falsify something is to TAMPER with the evidence, or MISREPRESENT the implication of the data, NOT TO DISCREDIT the underlying hypothesis.

By way of simple illustration, here is an obvious falsification of MM's hypothesis:

Christianity was created by Tiberius.

This is not Pete's hypothesis, in writing this sentence above, I have FALSELY represented Pete's thinking. My construction represents the FALSIFICATION of Pete's hypothesis. It does not in any way repudiate his hypothesis, unless I also present evidence demonstrating the purported fact that Tiberius, rather than Constantine, invented Christianity.

But, even in that narrow circumstance, if I had presented evidence that Tiberius created Christianity, it would still be improper to write that I have falsified MM's hypothesis, because my assertion is that PETE himself believes that Tiberius created Christianity, when if fact, MM has written that his thesis is that Constantine, not Tiberius, created Christianity.

There are many reasons for military victory. Let us for example consider the rationale for Napolean selling France's vast territories in North America to Thomas Jefferson, for pennies on the dollar. Why would he do that? Why would he throw away that fortune in Gold?

France's navy, in those days, was headquartered in Guadaloupe, and suffered a devastating bout of Yellow Fever, leaving Napolean with no navy to defend his land against the British. Better to get pennies than nothing!

Let us not underestimate the disease factor, in military conquest. Where does the food come from to feed all those troops? Maybe Constantine defeated his opponents because of climate change, leaving southern Italy and Greece without sufficient water for the crops, while Germany and France, Constantine's base, enjoyed good harvests, in a stable political environment, so that consequently, his troops were better nourished than his opponents'. Lethargy pursuant to malnutrition, and disease, promoted by inadequate hygiene, itself a function of scarcity of clean water, can devastate an army faster than a speeding bullet. How many troops died in the USA civil war fighting, versus being killed by disease? I believe that quantity is about 50%.

With regard to your main thesis, how do you ascertain that Christians were a "significant minority" in Italy in 300 CE? Where is the evidence for this notion?

spin

:banghead:
Sorry, Huon, but ignore this person. If a theory has any significance, it must be falsifiable, ie able to be falsified. (See falsifiability.) If one cannot provide a means for a theory to be falsified, the theory cannot be tested and thus has no value. It's hard to test mountainman's theory which posits that all christian documents are Eusebian or post-Eusebian given that he doesn't acknowledge palaeography, a common means of dating texts, but the theory is falsifiable given the possibility of a pre-Eusebian christian document, as indicated by a securely datable archaeological context. In fact, the Dura christian fragment falsifies the theory.

You can find this meaning of "falsify" in the dictionary: see meaning 4 here, meaning 1 here, meaning 3 here, meaning 2 here, meaning 2 here, meaning 2 here, meaning 3 here, meaning 3 here and so on.

Beware of linguistic witchdoctors!




spin

spin

When you correct someone, try to know what you are talking about.


spin

Huon

Thank you, spin !

In french, "falsifier" is to alter fraudulently.
To falsify a theory (to show or prove to be false; disprove) is IMO a recent neologism, pushed mainly by Karl Popper as a technical word.

IF I understand well, the theory of mountainman destroys all the christian authors of the second and third century, suppresses all the controversies of that time, denies the existence of some synods or councils, without giving any explanation of their mention by Eusebius. Why did Eusebius invent all this hotchpotch ?

mountainman says (correctly) that Constantine was a ruthless, bloodthirsty dictator. Why did Constantine lean on an inexistent religion, when he could have been a normal partisan of Sol Invictus, or Jupiter, as was Diocletian ?

avi

Absolutely correct.
Not only is spin's concept erroneous, but linguistically, he has now been shown to be utterly bankrupt, as Huon has brilliantly demonstrated, by offering the French ORIGINAL, the verb, from which the proper English useage is derived!!!!

FALSCH, a GERMAN word, is employed by Pooper, and his ilk, improperly, to represent "repudiate", or "discredit". Perhaps in Deutsch, it may be reasonable to write falschung, as a synonym for contradict or invalidate, but NOT in English (or French!).

In English, the falsification of ANYTHING, is a crime.

<edit>

Toto

avi -

You are wrong on this issue. spin is using the term "falsilfy" correctly as it is used in current discussions of this sort, and everyone else here seems to understand. Please drop this subject and please avoid personal speculation about anyone.

J-D

In other threads, Pete has repeatedly referred to the Popperian notion of 'falsification' as an appropriate standard. Personally, I have reservations about Popperian falsificationism both in general and as it applies to this particular case, but even if my reservations are justified, it's not fair to blame spin for introducing the concept, as he's only following Pete's lead.

avi

hmmm....Oh? This is not an inflammatory comment?

****************

The subject of this thread is whether or not the archaeological evidence, recovered along the Tigris/Euphrates river at excavations performed over several decades beginning in the mid 1920's, repudiates the hypothesis of Pete: namely that Constantine invented Christianity.

a. The 14 lines of legible text in this fragment of papyrus, ostensibly buried for 1700 years at Dura, include phrases and incomplete portions of words, (but not sentences per se,) --words which are also found in various new testament documents, however, the text, even if it were convincingly demonstrated to be a component of one of the gospels, could also have belonged to any one of several different Jewish messianic sects, groups which did NOT accept the Christian repudiation of Jewish laws, but did accept various aspects of the Jewish messiah myth, a tradition adopted not only by those groups, but by the Christians as well.

b. This Dura document does not misrepresent Pete's hypothesis.

c. The Dura document therefore neither refutes, nor falsifies Pete's hypothesis. This assertion of mine represents only an opinion, obviously, therefore, unlike "spin", who professes knowledge of the FACTUAL nature of the "correct" interpretation, i.e. his interpretation, of this fragment, I am NOT writing my conclusion, that the Dura fragment neither refutes nor falsifies Pete's hypothesis, as if it represents some sort of supposed "fact". It is merely my opinion. My opinion is NOT a fact, and of course, neither is "spin's", notwithstanding his writing to the contrary.

d. With regard to whether or not "everyone" else on this forum, MISUNDERSTANDS the proper definition of "falsify", I am curious to learn by what measure, you express such ABSOLUTE conviction of your assessment, Toto. Typically, this type of written expression, represents a philosophical impasse with one trained in science. We in that community, unwillingly accept proclamations, such as "you are wrong", without evidence.

Do you possess some evidence, Toto, in support of your notion that I err in insisting that the word falsification invariably is associated with fraud, rather than repudiation? It is after all quite important, in a thread devoted to exposing error, or a thread attempting to invalidate a particular hypothesis, by interpreting evidence of dubious character, to write and communicate with precision, and with accuracy. Who is your linguistic authority, that you would even dare SUGGEST, let alone insist, that I have erred on a question of scientific methods?

e. With regard to J-D's observation that "spin" was simply following Pete's misuse of the term "falsify", and therefore ought not be blamed by me for perpetuating the same linguistic nonsense, I am not actually directing my comments to "spin" per se, but rather, to the community at large, for I suspect that this forum embraces a large quantity of non-scientists--how else to explain the misunderstanding of this word, falsify? Perhaps it is precisely this lack of scientific expertise, which accounts for the peculiar habit on this forum, of proclaiming "FACT", when one ought to express "OPINION", or the tradition of writing in ABSOLUTE terms, without furnishing a reference, as if by DIKTAT, characteristics in harmony with both Christianity, and Constantine.

spin

Note my previous response? That was for you, but omitted because of Toto's last post.

When someone peddles inaccuracies about the language, you should warn others. That's what "Beware of linguistic witchdoctors!" should indicate.

You feel happy with the collocations of "repudiate" in that context. I am not. I prefer "falsify". Do not go on and on.

The rest of your stuff is sufficiently erratic to speak for itself and needs no criticism -- unless of course you truly and ruly need it.


spin

Amaleq13

Is not the subject Toto asked you to drop. You were asked to stop continuing your demonstrably false tangent about the meaning of "falsified".

Presumably, Toto is assuming that everyone else is capable of reading the dictionary and noting that the way spin is using the word is entirely consistent.

From Dictionary.com

Random House Unabridged Dictionary

4. to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.

American Heritage Dictionary

3. To declare or prove to be false.

WordNet 3.0

3. prove false; "Falsify a claim"

Miriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

3. To prove to be false, or untrustworthy; to confute; to disprove; to nullify; to make to appear false.

The definition you insist is the only correct one is the primary definition but the way spin is using it is quite clearly correct.

You were undeniably and equivocally wrong to suggest otherwise.