ApostateAbe

Reciprocal Expectations is a methodology for making belief decisions of any sort, and I think it is at the heart of any other good methodology for belief decisions.

Reciprocal Expectations is:

For a theory to be most probable, the evidence should expect the theory (plausibility) and the theory should expect the evidence (explanatory power). If, for a given theory, both criteria are fulfilled significantly more than for all competing theories, then the given theory is most probable.

To clarify what I mean by "expect":

If I were to say, "evidence expects theory," it is shorthand for saying that a reasoner expects the truth of the theory given that the reasoner accepts the existence of the evidence.

If I were to say, "theory expects evidence," it is shorthand for saying that a reasoner expects the existence of the evidence given that the reasoner accepts the truth of the theory.

The biggest expense of this methodology is the ambiguity. But, at the very least, it is a good way to frame any debate about objective reality, because it helps us to exclude irrational prejudices and bad assumptions, and it highlights the most important aspects: evidence and probability.

Agree or disagree?

tanya

I guess I must disagree, Abe.

Does your paragraph above work if we use Energy = Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared? (Einstein, 1905)

I don't think there is an easy way to intuitively understand this concept. In fact, I would go so far as to write, that some brilliant minds, especially including Maxwell, thirty years before Einstein, failed to arrive at this relationship.

I doubt that "probability" played a significant part, in elaboration of this relationship between mass and energy.

Evidence: there were centuries worth of data collection, essentially beginning no later than Newton/Leibniz, if not far earlier, under the Greeks. It was not paucity of data that prevented realization of this fundamental relationship.

So, no, I doubt very much your idea that "Reciprocal Expectations" play an important part in the attempt to obtain clarity on the question of the genesis of Christianity.

Toto

Previous discussion: this thread

The problem is that Abe is able to convince himself that his theories have great explanatory and predictive value when no one else thinks so.

ApostateAbe

I don't disagree with your points about physics. I think the methodology is useful for deciding the best among many theories that are on the table, but it is not useful for creating new theories. This means that the best theory on the table may still be wrong, just because the correct theory is not on the table.

aa5874

If what you claim is true then Jesus was Myth based on "Reciprocal Expectations".

1. The Evidence should Expect the Theory.

Examine the Written Evidence.

In gMatthew 1.18-20, Luke 26-35, John 1.1-4, Mark 6.48-49, Galatians 1.1 and 1 Cor.15. Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, was God the Creator, walked on the sea, Transfigured, resurrected and Ascended.

The WRITTEN EVIDENCE EXPECTS a MYTH theory.

2. The Theory EXPECTS the Evidence.

The MYTH Jesus theory EXPECTS MYTH in the NT.

MYTH is indeed in the NT.

Jesus was MYTH based on "Reciprocal Expectations".

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I fully explain the relevance of the methodology in that thread. If you would ever like to continue to spar with me in that thread, I am open to it. For example, I would love to know what you think of the theory that the community of Jesus was poor and illiterate, specifically whether or not you still believe it was devised as a way to explain why we have no direct written attestation of Jesus.

aa5874

Let us deal with the OP--"Reciprocal Expectations".

Once there is EVIDENCE of MYTH then the EVIDENCE EXPECTS a theory for MYTH Jesus.

Matthew 1:18 Matthew 1.18 EXPECTS a MYTH Jesus theory.

Mark 6.48-49 Mark 6.48-49 EXPECTS a Myth Jesus theory.

1 Corinthians 15 The Pauline writings EXPECT a resurrected Jesus theory.

The NT EXPECTS a MYTH Jesus theory.

Toto

Yes, I still do.

The problem with your "reciprocal" scheme is that it is circular. In scientific testing, you make observations and build a theory, then test that theory with new evidence from a controlled experiment (i.e., you test the predictability of your theory.)

Doug Shaver

Epistemologists have been discussing the making of belief decisions for centuries. What shortcomings in the theories they have formulated up to now do you think are addressed by your new terminology?

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I have sometimes complained that the "scientific method" that we all learn in junior high school--hypothesis, experiment, conclusion--is not actually used often in scientific practice. Much more often, the data (experiments) come first and the hypotheses come next. This is especially true in those scientific fields where experiments are not the most relevant data, but the most relevant data is historical data, such as in evolutionary biology. Of course, you can make a hypothesis and wait for the discovery of new data to confirm it, but of course it would depend on the event of the discovery of new data, which may or may not happen in good time, and it simply isn't necessary. Why not simply explain the data that is already on the table? In the natural sciences, they sometimes call this method, "retrodiction."

John S. Wilkins argues on TalkOrigins.org (link):

If you take the standard form of biological explanation, it has the same structure as a physical explanation. It just differs in two ways. First, you cannot isolate 'extraneous' influences ahead of time for wild populations. Second, you cannot make a prediction much beyond the immediate short term (hence, nobody can predict the future of evolution of a species). Although a number of experiments have been conducted to test selectionist hypotheses through prediction, such as the studies on finches in the Galápagos Islands by the Grants, mostly, explanations in evolution take the following format:



In other words, they are retrodictions, not predictions. The only formal difference between this and the same form in physics is that the tense is different. This use of the nomological-deductive model in historical cases is called a covering law model [Dray 1957, 1966].

There is a Wikipedia page on the Deductive-nomological model where you can learn more. Basically, explanations are found for data that already exists.

I don't think this is circular reasoning, but maybe you think my own formulation is circular, because the evidence and theory is "reciprocal." But, I don't think it is any more "circular" than putting two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together, seeing that they fit and concluding that they fit. The evidence expects the explanation and the explanation expects the evidence, and the strength of the explanation depends on how well it fits the evidence, like any good empirical argument. There are two directions involved in my formulation, but I don't think that makes it circular reasoning. If the two pieces do not fit as a pair, then the argument fails.