Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-18-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The issue isn't why they did, but whether they did.

Indeed. You're the one who claimed that this list of people cited Doherty as an expert.

Actually, I did not make a claim. I raised a question. Note the question mark at the end of my sentence "Hasn't Ted/Jacob? AS? Price? Carrier? What about P. Eddy and G. Boyd and Dan Wallace?". And note too that in my message in response to Toto's implied assertion that no one including Earl " has quoted Earl as an authority", I never used the word "expert -- as the very quote from my message that you adduce below shows. The word I used was Toto's word -- "authority".

In any case, are you too saying that no one, including Earl himself, has ever quoted Earl as an authority on the matters he pronounces upon?

Quote:

The issue isn't why they did, but whether they did. After all your claim was that no one, including Earl, quoted Earl as an authority. Are you saying that they didn't do this?

Let's see the proof of that.

Well, there's this from Carrier:

Quote:

First of all, let me say this: having read the entire book carefully, and having checked those facts I did not already know, I can honestly say as an expert that Doherty's facts are generally all in line. He does not make anything up or fudge the truth. And as far as I could tell, he doesn't leave out anything significant. Where he puts his own spin on things, he is usually explicit about that, and argues for his particular interpretation rather than asserting it as given. The exceptions to these general observations I detail at length in Appendix 1: Problems. But to a remarkable extent, I can sincerely vouch for the fact that lay readers can trust him as an historian and translator. All you need do, then, is assess how his facts relate to his arguments, and how strong these are in the end, an act of reason that any rational person, with care, can undertake. A special education is not necessary.

Secondly, this book must be taken seriously. It is not a quack theory, it is not shoddy work, it is not amateurish ... he is one of the most expert amateurs I have ever encountered. He has read a vast amount of scholarship and he actually understands what he reads. More importantly, he deals with ancient texts directly and competently. The scope of his work would be of dissertation quality, if it were only polished according to existing conventions. In short, I was very impressed. This is serious scholarship, marshaling a great deal of important evidence and observations, and the lack of letters behind the author's name does nothing to remove from the importance of this work as something one must read and interact with before dismissing.

Quote:

After all your claim was that no one, including Earl, quoted Earl as an authority. Are you saying that they didn't do this?

You are confused about burden of proof, Jeffrey. Toto's response was merely "Why would they do such a thing".

But prior to that Toto made a claim that that no one, including Earl, has ever quoted Earl as an authority. Therefore my note stating that it wasn't a matter of why, but of wherther was hardly burden shifting. It was a note that Toto had engaged in equivocation. Do you disagree that he did?

Quote:

It was your assertion that this list of people you presented all cited Doherty as an expert

There's no assertion in my message. And I did not use the word "expert".

Quote:

If you believe that is the case, then burden of proof rests on your shoulders to show that:

(1) each of these people on your list cited Doherty

Are you saying that the people on my list -- which included Earl, BTW -- have not cited Earl?

Quote:

and - in doing so -
(2) referred to him as an expert in this field.

Again, please show me where I used the word "expert"? And even assuming that I did, please show me how Carrier does not refer to him as an "expert".

Quote:

That was your claim.

But, as I noted above, and as the record shows, it was not my claim since in the message of mine that you quote I made no claim of any sort, let alone one about people referring to Earl as an "expert". Interesting that you have to misrepresent what I wrote and put words in my mouth to make your case that I did.

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-18-2008, 10:13 AM

Hi Jeffrey - you are the expert in dragging discussions off topic. You are expert in posing questions and then disavowing the clear implications of your questions.

So let's clarify terms. I say that no one ever uses Doherty's name in an argument from authority. People use Ehrman's name in that sort of argument - he's studied the matter for so long, we can defer to his authority on some technical questions. No one cites Doherty as an expert in this sense.

Carrier says that Doherty is an amateur expert - meaning someone whose ideas are worth listening to and spending the time to respond to, but not necessarily someone whose name can be dropped into an argument as settling the question.

I objected to Loftus using Lowder's name as an expert in the first sense.

Clear?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-18-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
OK. So what, then, was the basis of your saying that Lowder shouldn't be listened to as an authority on the matter that was was being raised by John?

Jeffrey

Here is what I posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is not Lowder's stated view that all (allegedly) historical documents must be accepted as prima facie evidence, just that in this particular case, the gospels are prima facie evidence of the existence of a Jesus character. He was working from the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the existence of a wandering Jewish prophet who was crucified is not extraordinary, so even a minimal amount of evidence, such as the gospels, should suffice for the claim that he existed.

Note that Lowder is not a historian, professional or otherwise, nor is he a NT scholar or a specialist in the gospels.

Where did I say that he should not be listened to? Nowhere that I can see.

Why then did you point to the fact that "Lowder is not a historian, professional or otherwise, nor is he a NT scholar or a specialist in the gospels" if it was not to say that what he claimed about ancient documents and prima facie evidence if it was not to point out that what Lowder says on the matter is not to be taken as in any way authoritative?

Quote:

I was arguing against Loftus' claim that professional historians accept ancient documents as prima facie evidence. In considering this claim, it is useful to know that Jeff Lowder is not a professional historian.

Why? Especially if it was on the basis of what Lowder said that John claimed his views were correct?

Quote:

Would you agree or not?

Obviously not.

Jeffrey

Toto · 12-18-2008, 10:35 AM

Obviously not.

Have a nice day, Merry Christmas or whatever holiday you celebrate.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-18-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Jeffrey - you are the expert in dragging discussions off topic. You are expert in posing questions and then disavowing the clear implications of your questions.

So let's clarify terms. I say that no one ever uses Doherty's name in an argument from authority.

Earl has. And frequently, especially in his tirades against those who, according to him, are too blind to see or too afraid to admit that he's on to something, and in his ad hominems against me (and others like Chris Weimer), as having an "abysmal understanding of what scholarship, free inquiry, and personal integrity is all about".

In any case, let's note that what you are now claiming is not what you previously claimed. What you previously claimed when you said "Please find any instance where anyone (even Earl) has quoted Earl as an authority" -- which was your response to my "Nor by the implications of your logic should Earl [be quoted as an authority, as Lowder should not be quoted as an authority on historical methodology] when it comes to the history of early Christianity or the interpretation of NT texts" was that no one quotes what Earl has to say on matters NT as if what he says has authority and merit.

So I think that if there's anyone here who enages in disavowing (or at least not realizing) the implications of what he says, it's you, not me.

Jeffrey

Sheshonq · 12-18-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, I did not make a claim. I raised a question.

Incorrect.

You first tossed this out:
Nor by the implications of your logic should Earl when it comes to the history of early Christianity or the interpretation of NT texts.

That's an implied claim that someone had cited Doherty as an authority. In your next post, you provide the list of people you seem to think have cited Doherty as an authority. The fact that you phrased that list as a challenge question doesn't negate the fact that you claimed the members of your list had indeed pointed to Doherty as an expert.

Hint: phrasing it in the form of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" does not change the fact that the question embodies a claim.

Quote:

And note too that in my message in response to Toto's implied assertion that no one including Earl " has quoted Earl as an authority",

You are forgetting the flow of events. Toto's comment was a reaction to your previous implied assertion that they had indeed done so.

Nor by the implications of your logic should Earl when it comes to the history of early Christianity or the interpretation of NT texts.

Your implied assertion came first. Burden of proof is still yours.

Quote:

I never used the word "expert

You didn't have to do so. In the red text above, the word "expert" (or "authority") was already on the table. Your response clearly borrowed the word from Toto's previous comment.

Quote:

In any case, are you too saying that no one,

I'm saying nothing at all about Doherty. I don't have burden of proof here; you do.

Quote:

Well, there's this from Carrier:

Where Carrier clearly states his view that Doherty is an amateur, albeit a highly trained one. Which compares quite favorably with what Toto said:

He is an interested amateur with some ideas that he has published, which others here have reacted to favorably or unfavorably, in whole or in part.

Zero points for your side.

Quote:

There's no assertion in my message. And I did not use the word "expert".

1. As I just demonstrated, there is most certainly an assertion. Posing it in the form of a question doesn't get you off the hook.
2. You didn't need to use the word, since it was already on the table. Red text above, Jeffrey.

Quote:

Are you saying that the people on my list -- which included Earl, BTW -- have not cited Earl?

I'm saying that since you believe this is the case, the burden of proof is on your back and no one else's. Personally I don't give a shit if they ever cited Doherty in their entire life. I'm just stepping in here to because I saw you trying to shift the burden for one of your own claims.

Quote:

But, as I noted above, and as the record shows, it was not my claim since in the message of mine that you quote I made no claim of any sort,

Except that it did make a claim. Phrasing it in the form of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" does not change the fact that the question embodies a claim.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-18-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, I did not make a claim. I raised a question.

Incorrect.

You first tossed this out:
Nor by the implications of your logic should Earl when it comes to the history of early Christianity or the interpretation of NT texts.

Actually, the exchange began with this message, not the one you quote.

Quote:

Except that it did make a claim. Phrasing it in the form of "have you stopped beating your wife yet" does not change the fact that the question embodies a claim.

Wow. Is that the form (i.e. that of a "loaded question", which is one which contains a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition) that my question was "phrased in"?

Wow. I'm far too clever for my own good!

Jeffrey

Sheshonq · 12-18-2008, 11:05 AM

[QUOTE=Jeffrey Gibson;5707304]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Incorrect.

You first tossed this out:
Nor by the implications of your logic should Earl when it comes to the history of early Christianity or the interpretation of NT texts.

Actually, the exchange began with this message, not the one you quote.

The exchange began there. However, your assertion began with the red text I posted. I wasn't trying to track backwards to the start of the conversation; only to the part where someone (you) first made a claim.

Your attempt at derailing my point doesn't work.

Quote:

Wow. Is that the form (i.e. that of a "loaded question", which is one which contains a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition) that my question was "phrased in"?

Presupposition? Certainly. False? Maybe. Disputed? Certainly - since you haven't fulfilled your burden of proof.

1. You have an implied assertion in the form of a statement.
2. You followed up with a list of people that you insinuated had indeed cited Doherty as an authority.
3. Phrasing that list in the form of a question doesn't change the fact that it contains a claim.

Wiggle all you want; those are the facts.

Quote:

Wow. I'm far too clever for my own good!

Too clever by half, as they say.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-18-2008, 11:31 AM

[QUOTE=Sheshonq;5707314]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The exchange began there. However, your assertion began with the red text I posted.

My assertion was about what Toto would be bound to deduce if he followed his own logic.

Quote:

I wasn't trying to track backwards to the start of the conversation; only to the part where someone (you) first made a claim.

About the implications of Toto's logic.

Quote:

Presupposition? Certainly. False? Maybe. Disputed? Certainly - since you haven't fulfilled your burden of proof.

Here is an example from Mark Crispin Miller, "Brain Drain", Context, No. 9, of a loaded question:

Quote:

Why should merely cracking down on terrorism help to stop it, when that method hasn't worked in any other country? Why are we so hated in the Muslim world? What did our government do there to bring this horror home to all those innocent Americans? And why don't we learn anything, from our free press, about the gross ineptitude of our state agencies? about what's really happening in Afghanistan? about the pertinence of Central Asia's huge reserves of oil and natural gas? about the links between the Bush and the bin Laden families?

I'd be grateful if you could demonstrate how my question -- which was not, as this one is, what logicians call a "yes or no" question, but a genuine request for information -- has, as you claim it does, the same form, let alone the same intent as this one does.

I note, too, citing this page on Logical Fallacies, that the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is also a yes/no question, since there there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

So I'd be grateful to you to demonstrate that the question I raised was indeed like this one in that it could not be answered directly without implying a falsehood or a statement would implicate Toto in some moral impropriety.

Quote:

1. You have an implied assertion in the form of a statement.

About the implications of Toto's logic.

Quote:

2. You followed up with a list of people that you insinuated had indeed cited Doherty as an authority.

So now it's insinuated, is it? Nice to see how you keep framing your the terms of your accusations to imply sinster and devious intent on my part.

We're' done.

Jeffrey

Sheshonq · 12-18-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

My assertion was about what Toto would be bound to deduce if he followed his own logic.

No. Your assertion was that someone had already been citing Doherty as an authority. You made that clear when you posted your list of "suspects".

Quote:

About the implications of Toto's logic.

No, your assertion was that someone had in fact cited Doherty, and therefore you were trying to corner Toto using his own logic. But that was predicated upon your implied assertion that people had been citing Doherty - otherwise your attempt to corner Toto would have been meaningless. If you didn't believe that some folks had cited Doherty, then there wouldn't be any hook to try and catch up Toto with, right?

Keep wiggling.

Quote:

Here is an example from Mark Crispin Miller,

Quite unnecessary. I never said your question was "loaded"; I merely said it contained an implied assertion. If your question said "Have you returned from Italy yet", then question still contains a claim that you went to Italy. The rest of your obsession over the form of the question is another of your classic attempts to derail a point by playing the martryr. Nobody is fooled.

Quote:

I'd be grateful if you could demonstrate how my question -- which was not, as this one is, what logicians call a "yes or no" question, but a genuine request for information

1. Your question was indeed a yes/no question.

2. But your question was not a "genuine request for information". It was an attempt to buttress your previous implied claim about Doherty being cited by skeptics (or others) as an expert. You created a list of people that you believed had cited Doherty as an authority, and tossed it out in the form of a question.

3. And even by your standard above (false, disputed, or question-begging) your question is at a minimum disputed, may very well be false, and assumes its own conclusion. Your question is well on its way to being loaded, but even if it weren't, it still contains an unsupported claim.

Quote:

So now it's insinuated, is it? Nice to see how you keep framing your the terms of your accusations to imply sinster and devious intent on my part.

You seem to think that citing Doherty is something negative. So "insinuate" is appropriate.

Your gymnastic attempt to avoid admitting that you presented a claim is humorous, but ultimately doomed to failure. Claims in the form of a question are quite common and you don't gain any traction by pretending otherwise.

Quote:

We're' done.

My dear Jeffrey: we were done several posts ago. Everything since then has an exercise in watching you scurry from corner to corner. And now you're quitting because it's less embarrassing than being skewered.

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

12-18-2008, 10:13 AM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Jeffrey - you are the expert in dragging discussions off topic. You are expert in posing questions and then disavowing the clear implications of your questions. So let's clarify terms. I say that no one ever uses Doherty's name in an argument from authority. People use Ehrman's name in that sort of argument - he's studied the matter for so long, we can defer to his authority on some technical questions. No one cites Doherty as an expert in this sense. Carrier says that Doherty is an amateur expert - meaning someone whose ideas are worth listening to and spending the time to respond to, but not necessarily someone whose name can be dropped into an argument as settling the question. I objected to Loftus using Lowder's name as an expert in the first sense. Clear?

12-18-2008, 10:35 AM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Obviously not. Have a nice day, Merry Christmas or whatever holiday you celebrate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.