Amaleq13

Your criterion for falsification is too subjective (ie "convincing") for the science you wish it to be and, as Solitary Man observes, apparently reversible.

Only for those who hold unrealistic expectations. It is no shame to admit that one's field of study does not offer the same sort of objectively measurable evidence or repeatedly experimentation as the "hard" sciences. It is simply accepting reality as it is.

Or the nature of the evidence it purports to explain. Surely you don't believe that every field of study offers evidence amenable to the scientific method as it is applied in physics?

Welcome to the "soft" sciences, amigo! And the softer they are, the more accurate your description.

gstafleu

Huh? First of all, an MJ excels in not existing, so coming up with one (as opposed to coming up with a convincing MJ theory) is impossible. Second, I'm addressing a particular HJ here: the one that has an undetectable historical footprint. Such an HJ is unfalsifiable because his non-detectability is built into the hypothesis. Other HJ's may be falsifiable.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Well, if you are attached to unfalsifiable hypotheses, then sure. As I pointed out, the requirement of unfalsifiability is there for good reasons. That it serves to make certain cherished hypotheses/beliefs invalid is regrettable. Except of course that that is exactly what it is meant to do :devil1:.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

What I believe is that unless a field of study manages to follow the scientific method, it won't get very far. It will most likely get stuck at the level of coffee-table-like discussions. Sokal affair, anybody?
Yes, and here is my prediction: as time progresses the soft sciences will become less soft and more hard, until they are no longer distinguishable from the "hard" sciences. Maybe some fields of study won't manage that. Vae victis. In the meanwhile, one should not use the alleged "softness" of a field of study as an excuse for not trying to harden it.

However, all of this has little to do with the OP. My point there was that in both a hard science like physics, and in a soft one like BC&H, the same tactic is followed when it comes to a cherished belief: structure your hypothesis such that the observed lack of evidence is implied in the hypothesis. This point, I think, still stands quite well.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

Shouldn't any "convincing" MJ theory necessarily involve producing evidence supporting the existence of belief in a specific sort of myth as the starting point?

Otherwise, your hypothesis is too vague to meet the scientific standards to which you aspire.

Amaleq13

If you only measure "far" by rigorous adherence to the scientific method, I agree but I've already indicated that to be rather unrealistic.

Sometimes the reality is all you can do is approximate that rigor.

Maybe but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Because everyone will join you in giving up on even bothering if you can't achieve "hard" science rigor? Again, not one upon which I would put any amount of money.

Who said anything about not trying? There is a significant difference between the straw man you describe and recognizing the inherent limitations of the available evidence and methods of assessing it.

No, it continues to miss the point that the nature of the evidence determines how testable one's hypotheses can be. There is no justification for imputing an intentional desire to avoid falsifiability. The cutting edge of all "hard" sciences share this problem with the less-than-objectively-testable "soft" sciences. IIRC, Greene openly acknowledges that due to the nature of the evidence he is trying to explain his string theory (or, one may presume any competing theory) may never be testable.

Do we shrug our shoulders and stop speculating about the quantum level of reality simply because it may not be possible to ever accurately measure or even observe it?

Solitary Man

No, an MJ is a positive theory. It posits that Jesus Christ started out as a Myth. Jesus Christ obviously exists, but how he exists needs to be addressed.

mg01

It appears what is being missed is the MJ theory brings the method of the origin of the Christian religion in line with other religious traditions. That is the idea that it started as a revelation based on a re-intrepretaion of existing ideas.

The MJ theory seperates the primary principle idea of Christianity, that of a divine savior from god with proposed historical figure that concieved the idea, Jesus himself. Again, this is something easily done with other religions, where the founding figures are unnecessary to the religous principles.

With this the distinction, the process by which Christianity emerged and developed to the point where the object became the founder and by gospel tradition made an earthly appearance which was later taken as historical is easlily recognized and relatable to the origin of other traditions.

aa5874

Jesus Christ obviously exists as just words before any investigation. Any other existence must be addressed.

Clivedurdle

I thought Popper was only problematic for believers because he neatly bundles all their beliefs in a package and says it is OK to ignore them! :devil1:

And Orthodox xianity is eminently pro myth and always has been - fully god and fully man?

Xian math!

And the Gospel of Mark is the clear starting point of myth!

"This is my beloved son" All filmed by CNN on the banks of the Jordan.....