Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 07-31-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is fundamentally ILLOGICAL for Scholars to claim Jesus was baptized by John because it was embarrassing when they ought to know that Fiction stories may contain embarrassing events.

It is fundamentally ILLOGICAL for Scholars to claim that there is "multiple attestation" in UNRELIABLE sources of the NT when they ought to know that MULTIPLE versions of any Fiction story may have MULTIPLE similar events.

No scholars have made those claims.

J-D · 07-31-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

..So, it is now clear, that the error is mine. I mistakenly thought that "conclusion" and "validity" were synonymous, but clearly they are not.

Apparently, in logic, it is possible to have a false conclusion, but a valid result, with, or without truthful premises.

It is IMPERATIVE that you understand what "validity" means with respect to "an argument".

It is IMPERATIVE that YOU understand what 'validity' means with respect to 'an argument'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The following are examples of INVALID arguments.

Invalid Argument 1. Even though the Gospels are historically Unreliable Jesus was baptized by John because it appeared to be embarrassing is NOT a valid argument. Fiction stories and Myth fables may contain embarrassing event.

Invalid Argument 2. Even though the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE they contain Multiple Attestation of an historical Jesus is NOT a valid argument. MULTIPLE versions of Myth fables and Fiction stories may contain the same or similar stories MULTIPLE times.

Invalid Argument 3: Even though the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE the history of an historical Jesus can be gleaned from the Unreliable Gospels WITHOUT any corroboration from credible external sources is NOT a valid argument.

THOSE are not EXAMPLES of INVALID ARGUMENTS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Unreliable sources NEED corroboration.

The argument for an historical Jesus is INVALID and cannot be maintained.

The following are examples of Valid arguments.

Valid Argument 1: The Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE. Myth fables are historically UNRELIABLE sources. Christians of antiquity Believed in MULTIPLE Myth fables. In MULTIPLE Versions of the Jesus stories in the NT, and MULTIPLE versions of the CODICES of antiquity Jesus was described as MYTH.

Valid Argument 2: If the Jesus stories were MYTH fables then we would NOT expect to find any credible historical sources of antiquity for Jesus of the NT and that is EXACTLY the position.

THOSE are not EXAMPLES of VALID ARGUMENTS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The argument that Jesus was a MYTH character or most likely a MYTH character is VALID.

J-D · 07-31-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

...

A. The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises.

B. Validity means something very specific in logic: that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
...

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Appropriately, this is the reason logic can be translated into symbols. The rules of logic, including validity, soundness and formal fallacies, can all be expressed using syntax, with no need for semantics.

Symbols employed:

! = NOT

validity: K

Premise : S

Definition, based upon sentence "A" above:

If S then K may be TRUE or FALSE;
If !S then K may be TRUE or FALSE;

Definition, based upon sentence "B" above:

If S, then K is TRUE;

To my way of thinking, there is accordingly a "sharp distinction" between A & B, above. One might even go so far as to label that distinction, a dichotomy.

At the very least, we ought to agree, based upon juxtaposing these two sentences, that the definition of K is ambiguous, depending upon the truthful character of S, according to "B", but, not according to "A", which explicitly repudiates a correlation between K and S.

avi

Ambiguity is relative. The definition of 'validity' is not ambiguous for me, or for PyramidHead, because we understand it. It is ambiguous for you because you don't. The question is, do you want to understand?

mountainman · 07-31-2011, 06:04 PM

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 PyramidHead

..... what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

But where does the evidence fit in to the grand scheme? I dont see it mentioned here at all. People who are experts in logic have also said that there are such things as "random truths" and "unproveable truths". I have a great respect for experienced logicians however the field being discussed in the OP is actually the field of ancient history, and therefore it is mandatory for the logicians to address the ancient historical evidence.

Here is a simple primer for experts in ancient history:

Quote:

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Methodp.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

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.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

What methods is aa5874 using to ascertain the value of the evidence? What methods are you using to ascertain the value of the evidence?

The value of what evidence? Please be specific and cite the evidence to which you are referring. Or an example of such evidence.

Any evidence that you are considering (or any evidence that aa5874 is considering, as the case may be). Of course, if you are not considering any evidence (or if aa5874 is not), then the question does not arise.

I am obliged to consider all the available evidence and disregard none of it, and as I understand it, aa5874 is also bound by such a constraint. If you wish to discuss the methods of how either I or aa5874 ascertain the value of the evidence then you will need to be specific about the item of evidence (out of the entire body of evidence available). The method of ascertaining the value of the evidence obvious varies dramatically between various categories of 21st century ancient historical research and evidence. One example is the dating methodology of C14 dating of gJudas compared to the dating methodology of paleographical assessment of P.52. New technologies like C14 are making an impact, and need to be themselves assessed. They have entirely new methodologies and their value for example is still being debated and is therefore evolving.

Therefore you obviously need to be specific and cite the evidence to which you are referring. We then examine how this evidence is itself being presented and valued according to its category. Methods can change across the field of all the evidence. Another example is multi-spectral imaging. If you reread your RED COLORED selection of the quote from Momigliano, I think you may see that he is also alluding to this changing technological assessment that I have mentioned above.

All the evidence is to be examined equal mindedly.

J-D · 07-31-2011, 07:22 PM

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 PyramidHead

..... what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

But where does the evidence fit in to the grand scheme? I dont see it mentioned here at all. People who are experts in logic have also said that there are such things as "random truths" and "unproveable truths". I have a great respect for experienced logicians however the field being discussed in the OP is actually the field of ancient history, and therefore it is mandatory for the logicians to address the ancient historical evidence.

Here is a simple primer for experts in ancient history:

Quote:

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Methodp.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

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.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

What methods is aa5874 using to ascertain the value of the evidence? What methods are you using to ascertain the value of the evidence?

The value of what evidence? Please be specific and cite the evidence to which you are referring. Or an example of such evidence.

Any evidence that you are considering (or any evidence that aa5874 is considering, as the case may be). Of course, if you are not considering any evidence (or if aa5874 is not), then the question does not arise.

I am obliged to consider all the available evidence and disregard none of it,

What is the evidence available to you that you are considering?

mountainman · 07-31-2011, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Ambiguity is relative. The definition of 'validity' is not ambiguous for me, or for PyramidHead, because we understand it. It is ambiguous for you because you don't.

Do you have an valid evidence for or against the theory of the historical jesus?

Quote:

The question is, do you want to understand?

Is this a sermon?

J-D · 07-31-2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Ambiguity is relative. The definition of 'validity' is not ambiguous for me, or for PyramidHead, because we understand it. It is ambiguous for you because you don't.

Do you have an valid evidence for or against the theory of the historical jesus?

PyramidHead and I were discussing the use of the term 'validity' in the context of the distinction in logic between 'valid arguments' and 'invalid arguments'. That specific distinction is applicable to a specific sense in logic of the word 'argument'. It is not applicable to evidence.

Do you have any evidence for or against any theory of a historical Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

The question is, do you want to understand?

Is this a sermon?

No. It's an attempt on my part to save myself the effort of explaining a subtle technical concept to somebody who has no interest in it. I'm happy to explain it to anybody who is genuinely interested, but there's no point otherwise.

mountainman · 08-01-2011, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

PyramidHead and I were discussing the use of the term 'validity' in the context of the distinction in logic between 'valid arguments' and 'invalid arguments'.

An exercise in pedantic triviality.

Quote:

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 467

J-D 170
aa5874 114
mountainman 77
PyramidHead 32
avi 28
Toto 10
Diogenes the Cynic 10
TedM 9
Kapyong 3
Chaucer 2
JoyJuice 2
Horatio Parker 2
johnnyv 1
bootsie 1
Sheshbazzar 1
mysteriousworld 1
Juststeve 1
Vorkosigan 1
Dutch_labrat 1
andrewcriddle 1

J-D · 08-01-2011, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

PyramidHead and I were discussing the use of the term 'validity' in the context of the distinction in logic between 'valid arguments' and 'invalid arguments'.

An exercise in pedantic triviality.

It interests us. If it doesn't interest you, nobody's obliging you to pay attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 467

J-D 170
aa5874 114
mountainman 77
PyramidHead 32
avi 28
Toto 10
Diogenes the Cynic 10
TedM 9
Kapyong 3
Chaucer 2
JoyJuice 2
Horatio Parker 2
johnnyv 1
bootsie 1
Sheshbazzar 1
mysteriousworld 1
Juststeve 1
Vorkosigan 1
Dutch_labrat 1
andrewcriddle 1

Do you see some significance in this tabulation? I don't. I don't see why you bothered with it.

steve_bnk · 08-01-2011, 08:20 AM

First I look at the region today with its geo-politics and religious conflict. In a broad sense, not much different than in the time of JC. Extreme nationalism and militants, albeit the sides are different.

The question comes down to JC as an outright fabrication of a tale built on an historical character.

Why would one fabricate such a tale? Considering the times those who had the literary skills to dream it up and put it to paper would have been limited. Along with that, they would need the resources, leisure time was a commodity for the few. What would be the goal and why pick a wandering poor Jewish rabbi as the central character? If it was fabricated they would have to market it to get a following. Hard to do in those times, no mass communications.

In the balance an HJ upon which the tale was spun makes more sense. Over time in the retelling curing a psychosomatic disease via faith healing becomes raising Lazarus from the dead. Look at Catholics today. Water at Lourdes believed to cure organic disease. Or the tale of Fatima which just happened in the last century.

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima
In the times JC would have been one of many wandering malcontents preaching the end, it is what Jewish prophets/mystics have always done, and usually suffered for it.

People claiming to be the prophesied messiah were not uncommon. He fits the profile.

In the balance I lean towards an HJ upon which a movement began. To me it is more probable it was a movement that grew and embellished over time than an outright fabrication.

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

08-01-2011, 08:20 AM	#470
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	First I look at the region today with its geo-politics and religious conflict. In a broad sense, not much different than in the time of JC. Extreme nationalism and militants, albeit the sides are different. The question comes down to JC as an outright fabrication of a tale built on an historical character. Why would one fabricate such a tale? Considering the times those who had the literary skills to dream it up and put it to paper would have been limited. Along with that, they would need the resources, leisure time was a commodity for the few. What would be the goal and why pick a wandering poor Jewish rabbi as the central character? If it was fabricated they would have to market it to get a following. Hard to do in those times, no mass communications. In the balance an HJ upon which the tale was spun makes more sense. Over time in the retelling curing a psychosomatic disease via faith healing becomes raising Lazarus from the dead. Look at Catholics today. Water at Lourdes believed to cure organic disease. Or the tale of Fatima which just happened in the last century. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima In the times JC would have been one of many wandering malcontents preaching the end, it is what Jewish prophets/mystics have always done, and usually suffered for it. People claiming to be the prophesied messiah were not uncommon. He fits the profile. In the balance I lean towards an HJ upon which a movement began. To me it is more probable it was a movement that grew and embellished over time than an outright fabrication.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.