mountainman

Evidence in support of a proposition/claim/hypothesis is positive evidence; evidence against the same proposition/claim/hypothesis is negative evidence. Negative evidence can include "silence" - events which did not happen.

Toto

No, it's my example. Don't mess with it. The point of this example is that there is ample evidence of the existence of George Washington. The prayer book was not meant to provide evidence of his existence. It might have just been meant to earn some money by selling a book associated with George Washington - which would provide positive evidence of the importance of George Washington.

In any case, it is not negative evidence of anything. Identifying it as a forgery does not add to the case for the existence of George Washington, and does not add or subtract from the evidence for his religious views. It is irrelevant.

mountainman

The modern historical context of the example is skewed by a mountain of other positive evidence.


But this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the example. The 'ample evidence of the existence of GW' is part of the background knowledge and evidence for GW, of which the Prayer Books was once part. In order to make the example relate to the historicity of Jesus or Paul or Socrates - figures of ancient history, not relatively modern American history - a few reasonable concessions need to made. For a start, we do not have the historical sources that support the existence of these three figures of antiquity as we do for the example of GW.

It is entirely reasonable to adopt a thought experiment and assume, hypothetically speaking, that the Prayer Book is the only, or one of a very small number of, evidence items (rather than a large collection). This should not alter the principles of the argument- rather it should highlight the principles.

Evidence is incremental it is not a whole amorphous mass - it has constituent atomic bits and pieces - and this is the level that is being discussed here. One "atomic item" is the Prayer Book.



Yes of course this is the case. Fraud is generally associated with acquisition of money or power or services. The identity of GW was already established, it does not hinge on the prayer book. But this is not the case with Jesus or Paul or Socrates. The authentic historical identity of these figures is far lesser attested by the evidence.




If it is in fact a fraud, it is negative evidence against the claim that GW wrote it with his own hand.



I have stated as much.



It appears to be irrelevant due to the large number of other items supporting the existence of GW. But all evidence admitted and/or claimed must be taken seriously and assessed for its value. It's relevance increases in some kind of inverse proportion to the total amount of evidence items supporting the claim (here for the existence of GW, Jesus, Paul and Socrates).

It is by no means irrelevant to set an ancient context on your example and to provisionally hold all other evidence in temporary obeyance and ask the question what if the historicity of GW is directly dependent on the assessment of the Prayer Book, then how is the Prayer Book to be assessed - as positive, neutral or negative evidence in support of the existence of GW.


It is understood already that such an assessment does not prove or disprove anything. This is not the point of discussion here. The point being discussed is whether a forged document supporting a claim is to be treated as positive, neutral or negative evidence for that claim. I think we all agree that it cannot be treated as positive evidence in support of the claim.

What remains to be resolved is whether the forged evidence is to be ignored as zero value, neutral value for the claim, or whether it is to be treated as negative evidence, against the claim.

J-D

Your first sentence is clear, but your second sentence shows your continuing confusion: it's true that the non-occurrence of an event can be 'negative evidence' in the sense you've defined in the first sentence, but it can equally well be 'positive evidence' in the sense you've defined in the first sentence.

There's no general principle that silence can count as evidence against a proposition/claim/hypothesis but never as evidence for one: it depends on what the specific silence is and what the specific proposition/claim/hypothesis is.

Likewise, there's no general principle that a forged document can count as evidence against a proposition/claim/hypothesis but never as evidence for one; it depends on what the specific forged document is and what the specific proposition/claim/hypothesis is.

mountainman

Well we might just stop and rest with the first sentence.


I did say "can include" - it obviously depends on the case being investigated.



Negative evidence can include "silence" - events which did not happen.


Negative evidence can include forged documents, since forged documents can represent events which did not happen, presented fraudulently as positive evidence in respect of a claim by the forger(s).

J-D

But given your definition of the terms, so can positive evidence. It would be simpler to say just that silence can sometimes be evidence.But given your definition of the terms, so can positive evidence. It would be simpler to say just that forged documents can sometimes be evidence.

Toto

On the contrary, the other positive evidence shows the real meaning of the forged piece of evidence.



The principle is the same - the forged piece of evidence does not become negative evidence when the forgery is discovered. It is the same with Washington and Jesus.

I don't know what this means.

But the principle remains the same. Forgery is not negative evidence.


That is not the claim being investigated.


There are times where a forged piece of evidence is positive evidence of some claim.

It clearly has zero value in the case of the Prayer Book. I would argue that all of the Christian forgeries have zero value as evidence for Jesus, and are not negative evidence against his historical existence.

Doug Shaver

No, that isn't what I said. Your skills at creative reinterpretation of statements in ordinary language are a wonder to behold. You could have been a superb inerrantist, the way you can make any sequence of words mean whatever you need it to mean.

mountainman

I may be convinced that known and identified forgeries in "Biblical History" are to be treated as having zero value as evidence if it can be established that such forgeries are essentially struck from the register of evidence, analogous to the retraction of fabricated or forged evidence presented in a scientific paper. I have started a thread in the science forum entitled Handling Fraud: methods and stats in science, ancient history and "biblical history" in which I have made a summary review of how fraud is handled by the scientific method, and compare this to how fraud is handled in ancient history. Additionally I seek to establish how fraud is handled in the sub-discipline of ancient history, known as "Biblical History".

If evidence found to be fraudulent is to be struck off the register of evidence, in the same manner as a fraudulent scientifici experiment is retracted from the growing mass of scientific publications, then it obviously cannot be either positive or negative with respect to the claim for which it was purposefully fabricated.

What I see as an exceedingly troublesome factor for the field of "Biblical History" is the massive amounts of forgeries that have appeared and been identified. For example, There are about 1,100 Early Christian saints before 450 CE who all have an exceedingly dubious historicity. Additionally questionable to a certain degree are the more than 10,000 Roman Catholic saints after 450 CE.. We may add to these a list of bones, of relics, of foreskins, or fragments of the cross, shrounds, ossuary boxes and other fabrications which commenced to be traded and retained at Christian basilicas after the mid 4th century until the present day. Forged Christian manuscripts may also be added. How many authors X also have another author called "Pseudo-X" writing material related to Christian Origins in the first 4-5 centuries - quite a few. Each of these authors may be associated with far more than just one manuscript, for example in the case of Pseudo-Lucian we may be dealing with scores of forged manuscripts. All this represents a large list of frauds and forgeries.

It is important to state the volume of evidence which, if we are to go the way of the scientific method, should be effectively retracted from the index of ancient historical evidence as forgeries. I see it as important to quantify these historical forgeries and to compare the thousands and thousands of items of pious forgery enacted in the service of the Christian religion to be compared with the very very small number of claimed genuine items that may be cited today in support of the claims of the purported Christian history.

tanya

I confess to being a bit confused about this business (also) of "negative evidence".

If I gather some data, which supports an hypothesis, that would be positive evidence, right? Then, if I gather some evidence which refutes an hypothesis, isn't that also "positive" evidence? It is simply positive for the antithesis of the original hypothesis, but, as evidence, it is still affirmative per se, correct?

Then, what is it that constitutes "negative" evidence? To me, the only "negative" data from an investigation would arise from that circumstance where one had endeavored, mightily, yet failed, to acquire ANY data. In such case, were one to inquire: Did you discover any evidence to either prove or disprove your hypothesis, I would have to reply, NO. I failed to uncover any evidence, at all. "Negative" evidence, in that scenario, would embrace the concept of responding to the contrary of the affirmative in answering the question of whether or not data had been procured, data which could have either supported, or repudiated the hypothesis. Is this wrong?