Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-21-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Here is the response-in-thread.

The substance bears repetition:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sulla1 at historum

A fascinating question, Jack; thanks for asking

History's method is quasi-scientific; more exactly, it is as scientific (rigorous) as it can possibly be, given its particular circumstances.

Given that strict scientific methodology (i.e. up to double blind controlled trials plus metanalyses) is inherently impossible for History, the postulates of the historical hypotheses (often miscalled "theories") are subject to what is often called "mental experiements", in a nutshell rigorously controlled "what-if" speculation.

The traditional scientific methodology is reversed in one critical point; the results of the "mental experiment" (i.e. the present conditions of the issue at hand) are known in advance; it is the "methodology" of such process which is trying to be logically induced from such results.

In fact, the results are essentially the only potentially truly objective part of the process; ergo, extreme rigor is required for recording such results.

The process as a whole is superficially similar to pure philosophical research, given the ostensible relevance of logical reasoning (actually shared by any scientific discipline).

The critical difference is that, contrary to pure philosophical research and analogous to any scientific discipline, the method of History is restricted by the regular rules of evidence; the core falsifiable criteria of Popper are required too.

Even if in principle any past may be considered "History" in practice it is regularly restricted fundamentally to the study of the recorded (basically written) development of humankind; ergo, it is no surprise that the History method so often tends to overlap with the methodology of several other Humanities, notably anthropology and sociology.

For example, there are myriad hypotheses on the Fall of the Roman Empire.

All of them naturally begin from the easily verifiable hard fact that the Roman Empire doesb't survive to this day... or mostly, because some institutions like the Catholic and Orthodox churches ostensibly evolved directly form remnants of such empire. Such survival (i.e. one of the objective results of the process) even if limited, couldn't be ignored for any valid hypotheses on this process.

Besides, even the most superficial review will show how problematic the lack of consensus on the very definition of the studied results of this process may be, i.e. the "Fall"; some authors are ostensibly talking about the fall of the city of Rome, some others about the political conquest of the Roman empire by alien invaders, some other of the social collapse of the Western half of the empire, some others about the end of the Classical civilization as a whole, and so on.

More explicitly related to the "mental experiments" of the methodology of historical research, plenty of the purported explanations on why the Western Roman Empire "fell" are plainly unviable, simply because they fail to explain why did the Eastern side survived to the same process; the evidence of such survival (the results of such process) is still relevant and verifiable to this very day.

Hope this stuff may be helpful

Your interlocutor there makes the excellent point that the concept of 'the fall of the Roman Empire' does not have one clear single meaning, and that serious discussion of it requires analysing it into smaller components.

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

mountainman · 12-21-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I think it more likely that Paul really existed than that he did not exist. That hypothesis, in my judgment, underlies the most parsimonious accounting of all the extant evidence relevant to the provenance of the documents generally referred to as the Pauline Corpus.

Let's try this one more time. Restricting the focus just to the questions about the figure of Paul, how does this differ from the positive historicity hypothesis that I have discussed, namely "Paul existed". Had you instead responded that you thought it likely that Paul really did not exist then this is the negative historicity hypothesis. I cannot see that there is any substantial difference.

This particular exchange goes back to your post #157. If you can see no difference, substantial or otherwise, between what you said there and what I said immediately above, then it is quite beyond my communicative abilities to set you straight.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you appear to be qualifying the hypothesis "Paul existed" with the additional claim that this hypothesis is more likely than the antithetical hypothesis that "Paul did not exist".

mountainman · 12-21-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hypothesis testing is certainly highly related, but not central.

When you use terms like "null hypothesis," testing is what it's all about. It doesn't get more central than that.

I too have studied statistical mathematics, and statistical hypothesis testing and very much appreciate the central role and conventions associated with what is there termed the "Null Hypothesis".

If I had to count the number of times in this thread in which I presented a tabulated array of data such as the following:

100% positive historicity xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

0 - ZERO - the zero historicity hypothesis <<<========= ZERO/NULL

-100% negative historicity xxxxxxxx

you will always see a zero/null option.
This is what I am refering to as the zero hypothesis.
It corresponds to an assessment which is neither + or -.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The thread was exploring the role of hypotheses in general within ancient history (and thus BC&H) in their representation of the evidence.

The role of hypotheses in ancient history is (or ought to be) the same as their role in science generally. They are offered as potential explanations of evidence, i.e. observed facts. Strictly speaking (which is how we should be speaking if we're trying to be scientific), an explanation is not the same thing as a representation.

Fair enough. I agree with this.

J-D · 12-21-2011, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Here is the response-in-thread.

The substance bears repetition:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sulla1 at historum

A fascinating question, Jack; thanks for asking

History's method is quasi-scientific; more exactly, it is as scientific (rigorous) as it can possibly be, given its particular circumstances.

Given that strict scientific methodology (i.e. up to double blind controlled trials plus metanalyses) is inherently impossible for History, the postulates of the historical hypotheses (often miscalled "theories") are subject to what is often called "mental experiements", in a nutshell rigorously controlled "what-if" speculation.

The traditional scientific methodology is reversed in one critical point; the results of the "mental experiment" (i.e. the present conditions of the issue at hand) are known in advance; it is the "methodology" of such process which is trying to be logically induced from such results.

In fact, the results are essentially the only potentially truly objective part of the process; ergo, extreme rigor is required for recording such results.

The process as a whole is superficially similar to pure philosophical research, given the ostensible relevance of logical reasoning (actually shared by any scientific discipline).

The critical difference is that, contrary to pure philosophical research and analogous to any scientific discipline, the method of History is restricted by the regular rules of evidence; the core falsifiable criteria of Popper are required too.

Even if in principle any past may be considered "History" in practice it is regularly restricted fundamentally to the study of the recorded (basically written) development of humankind; ergo, it is no surprise that the History method so often tends to overlap with the methodology of several other Humanities, notably anthropology and sociology.

For example, there are myriad hypotheses on the Fall of the Roman Empire.

All of them naturally begin from the easily verifiable hard fact that the Roman Empire doesb't survive to this day... or mostly, because some institutions like the Catholic and Orthodox churches ostensibly evolved directly form remnants of such empire. Such survival (i.e. one of the objective results of the process) even if limited, couldn't be ignored for any valid hypotheses on this process.

Besides, even the most superficial review will show how problematic the lack of consensus on the very definition of the studied results of this process may be, i.e. the "Fall"; some authors are ostensibly talking about the fall of the city of Rome, some others about the political conquest of the Roman empire by alien invaders, some other of the social collapse of the Western half of the empire, some others about the end of the Classical civilization as a whole, and so on.

More explicitly related to the "mental experiments" of the methodology of historical research, plenty of the purported explanations on why the Western Roman Empire "fell" are plainly unviable, simply because they fail to explain why did the Eastern side survived to the same process; the evidence of such survival (the results of such process) is still relevant and verifiable to this very day.

Hope this stuff may be helpful

Your interlocutor there makes the excellent point that the concept of 'the fall of the Roman Empire' does not have one clear single meaning, and that serious discussion of it requires analysing it into smaller components.

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

Unless what the term 'Jesus' means in ancient history is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus', then it is not an atomic concept and is reducible, whether anybody has previously made the attempt or not.

But perhaps the only concept of 'Jesus' you are interested in is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus'?

J-D · 12-21-2011, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hypothesis testing is certainly highly related, but not central.

When you use terms like "null hypothesis," testing is what it's all about. It doesn't get more central than that.

I too have studied statistical mathematics, and statistical hypothesis testing and very much appreciate the central role and conventions associated with what is there termed the "Null Hypothesis".

If I had to count the number of times in this thread in which I presented a tabulated array of data such as the following:

100% positive historicity xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

0 - ZERO - the zero historicity hypothesis <<<========= ZERO/NULL

-100% negative historicity xxxxxxxx

you will always see a zero/null option.
This is what I am refering to as the zero hypothesis.
It corresponds to an assessment which is neither + or -.

Then it is not the same thing as what is meant by 'the null hypothesis' in statistical hypothesis testing.

mountainman · 12-21-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Your interlocutor there makes the excellent point that the concept of 'the fall of the Roman Empire' does not have one clear single meaning, and that serious discussion of it requires analysing it into smaller components.

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

Unless what the term 'Jesus' means in ancient history is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus', then it is not an atomic concept and is reducible, whether anybody has previously made the attempt or not.

But perhaps the only concept of 'Jesus' you are interested in is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus'?

You should agree at least that the concept of the fall of the Roman empire is a complex thing, while the concept of the historical existence of person X is not, and is about as simple as you can get --- which is my entire point.

Which Jesus?

The following scholars have written books about the Jesus who is the subject of the hypothesis in the field of ancient history concerning the origins of Christianity:

We have discussed Richard Carrier, Herman Detering, Earl Doherty and Hoffman of the Jesus Project. To this we could add hundreds of books, such as The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

My use of the term Jesus in the pair of antithetical hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history" follows the Jesus conventions used by the contemporary (and past) academics in a specific field.

In this sense and this sense alone - within the field of the history of Christian origins - the term Jesus is essentially agreed upon by all people as the identity who is described in the new testament literature and its earliest history. If we have to get formal about it, then we are talking about the identity Jesus who is put forward as the author of a letter, asserted to have been preserved in the archives and addressed to the King of Edessa.

fundamental nature of these positive and negative historicity hypotheses

Therefore I see these hypotheses as essentially fundamental with respect to this field. They cannot be broken down any further. An identity (an author) either existed in history or he/she did not. It's about as simple as is required for the investigation of christian origins (and its academic scholarship).

J-D · 12-21-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Your interlocutor there makes the excellent point that the concept of 'the fall of the Roman Empire' does not have one clear single meaning, and that serious discussion of it requires analysing it into smaller components.

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

Unless what the term 'Jesus' means in ancient history is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus', then it is not an atomic concept and is reducible, whether anybody has previously made the attempt or not.

But perhaps the only concept of 'Jesus' you are interested in is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus'?

You should agree at least that the concept of the fall of the Roman empire is a complex thing, while the concept of the historical existence of person X is not, and is about as simple as you can get --- which is my entire point.

Which Jesus?

The following scholars have written books about the Jesus who is the subject of the hypothesis in the field of ancient history concerning the origins of Christianity:

We have discussed Richard Carrier, Herman Detering, Earl Doherty and Hoffman of the Jesus Project. To this we could add hundreds of books, such as The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

My use of the term Jesus in the pair of antithetical hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history" follows the Jesus conventions used by the contemporary (and past) academics in a specific field.

In this sense and this sense alone - within the field of the history of Christian origins - the term Jesus is essentially agreed upon by all people as the identity who is described in the new testament literature and its earliest history. If we have to get formal about it, then we are talking about the identity Jesus who is put forward as the author of a letter, asserted to have been preserved in the archives and addressed to the King of Edessa.

fundamental nature of these positive and negative historicity hypotheses

Therefore I see these hypotheses as essentially fundamental with respect to this field. They cannot be broken down any further. An identity (an author) either existed in history or he/she did not. It's about as simple as is required for the investigation of christian origins (and its academic scholarship).

The New Testament literature makes a number of separate and independent assertions about a character referred to as 'Jesus', and in this sense the description of 'Jesus' is composite, not atomic, and amenable to analytical breakdown.

Even in your own response, you have given two different definitions of 'Jesus', one in terms of the New Testament literature and the other in terms of a letter alleged to have been written to the King of Edessa. These are not interchangeable. It makes a difference which one is being used.

Similarly, different past writers on the subject have given different descriptions of Jesus. By giving different meanings to the term they are in effect developing a range of different hypotheses which do not reduce simply to a binary choice between two options of which one is a direct negation of the other.

mountainman · 12-21-2011, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hypothesis testing is certainly highly related, but not central.

When you use terms like "null hypothesis," testing is what it's all about. It doesn't get more central than that.

I too have studied statistical mathematics, and statistical hypothesis testing and very much appreciate the central role and conventions associated with what is there termed the "Null Hypothesis".

If I had to count the number of times in this thread in which I presented a tabulated array of data such as the following:

100% positive historicity xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

0 - ZERO - the zero historicity hypothesis <<<========= ZERO/NULL

-100% negative historicity xxxxxxxx

you will always see a zero/null option.
This is what I am refering to as the zero hypothesis.
It corresponds to an assessment which is neither + or -.

Then it is not the same thing as what is meant by 'the null hypothesis' in statistical hypothesis testing.

No. That's right.

I have claimed that a most primitive and fundamental HISTORICITY hypothesis may be associated with every single item of the evidence examined in the field of history, and related to one of the Core principles of the historical method, namely:

Quote:

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.

The evidence item is either authentic and genuinely historical-in-context or it has been fabricated or forged. The former is described as positive, the latter as negative, historicity. It can be applied to all evidence, including Jesus.

However to be complete, the starting position should be defined and this is the zero point which is departed from by both the positive and negative hypotheses. This zero point can be regarded as meaning a number of things, including "UNKNOWN", "Insufficient evidence to make a determination of positive or negative", etc). It too may be associated with all evidence items, and may in fact be the default before the exploration and assessment of the field (allocating positive - and in some cases negative - historicity to elements of the evidence)

mountainman · 12-21-2011, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

Unless what the term 'Jesus' means in ancient history is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus', then it is not an atomic concept and is reducible, whether anybody has previously made the attempt or not.

But perhaps the only concept of 'Jesus' you are interested in is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus'?

You should agree at least that the concept of the fall of the Roman empire is a complex thing, while the concept of the historical existence of person X is not, and is about as simple as you can get --- which is my entire point.

Which Jesus?

The following scholars have written books about the Jesus who is the subject of the hypothesis in the field of ancient history concerning the origins of Christianity:

We have discussed Richard Carrier, Herman Detering, Earl Doherty and Hoffman of the Jesus Project. To this we could add hundreds of books, such as The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

My use of the term Jesus in the pair of antithetical hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history" follows the Jesus conventions used by the contemporary (and past) academics in a specific field.

In this sense and this sense alone - within the field of the history of Christian origins - the term Jesus is essentially agreed upon by all people as the identity who is described in the new testament literature and its earliest history. If we have to get formal about it, then we are talking about the identity Jesus who is put forward as the author of a letter, asserted to have been preserved in the archives and addressed to the King of Edessa.

fundamental nature of these positive and negative historicity hypotheses

Therefore I see these hypotheses as essentially fundamental with respect to this field. They cannot be broken down any further. An identity (an author) either existed in history or he/she did not. It's about as simple as is required for the investigation of christian origins (and its academic scholarship).

The New Testament literature makes a number of separate and independent assertions about a character referred to as 'Jesus', and in this sense the description of 'Jesus' is composite, not atomic, and amenable to analytical breakdown.

Yes and no.

N/A

I see the situation as if we are dealing with a relational database and that although there are indeed multiple references to Jesus within the canonical and noncanonical new testament literature - on a ms by ms basis - each of these references is intended to be pointing at one Jesus who is purported to be an historical figure. There are many references to Caesar, but only one Caesar. The more references in general from around the ballpark that support the asserted positive historicity of any specific historical figure, the better and more positive that figure usually becomes.

Separately the positive and negative historicity hypothesis appied to each of these sources about Jesus. But it is just as valid to apply the historicity hypothesis to the purported historical figure alluded to in the various texts, and this is what I am doing in asking the question "Did Jesus exist".

Quote:

Even in your own response, you have given two different definitions of 'Jesus', one in terms of the New Testament literature and the other in terms of a letter alleged to have been written to the King of Edessa. These are not interchangeable. It makes a difference which one is being used.

They both relate to the person Jesus, the historical existence of whom is being questioned. (See the schematic)

Quote:

Similarly, different past writers on the subject have given different descriptions of Jesus. By giving different meanings to the term they are in effect developing a range of different hypotheses which do not reduce simply to a binary choice between two options of which one is a direct negation of the other.

But I am not going into all the hypotheses about his description or what words may have been genuine, but rather I am dwelling on the very general and fundamental concept of historicity. In this context, the positive and negative historicity are fundamental, and in one sense take priority.

J-D · 12-22-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

Unless what the term 'Jesus' means in ancient history is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus', then it is not an atomic concept and is reducible, whether anybody has previously made the attempt or not.

But perhaps the only concept of 'Jesus' you are interested in is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus'?

You should agree at least that the concept of the fall of the Roman empire is a complex thing, while the concept of the historical existence of person X is not, and is about as simple as you can get --- which is my entire point.

Which Jesus?

The following scholars have written books about the Jesus who is the subject of the hypothesis in the field of ancient history concerning the origins of Christianity:

We have discussed Richard Carrier, Herman Detering, Earl Doherty and Hoffman of the Jesus Project. To this we could add hundreds of books, such as The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

My use of the term Jesus in the pair of antithetical hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history" follows the Jesus conventions used by the contemporary (and past) academics in a specific field.

In this sense and this sense alone - within the field of the history of Christian origins - the term Jesus is essentially agreed upon by all people as the identity who is described in the new testament literature and its earliest history. If we have to get formal about it, then we are talking about the identity Jesus who is put forward as the author of a letter, asserted to have been preserved in the archives and addressed to the King of Edessa.

fundamental nature of these positive and negative historicity hypotheses

Therefore I see these hypotheses as essentially fundamental with respect to this field. They cannot be broken down any further. An identity (an author) either existed in history or he/she did not. It's about as simple as is required for the investigation of christian origins (and its academic scholarship).

The New Testament literature makes a number of separate and independent assertions about a character referred to as 'Jesus', and in this sense the description of 'Jesus' is composite, not atomic, and amenable to analytical breakdown.

Yes and no.

N/A

I see the situation as if we are dealing with a relational database and that although there are indeed multiple references to Jesus within the canonical and noncanonical new testament literature - on a ms by ms basis - each of these references is intended to be pointing at one Jesus who is purported to be an historical figure. There are many references to Caesar, but only one Caesar. The more references in general from around the ballpark that support the asserted positive historicity of any specific historical figure, the better and more positive that figure usually becomes.

Separately the positive and negative historicity hypothesis appied to each of these sources about Jesus. But it is just as valid to apply the historicity hypothesis to the purported historical figure alluded to in the various texts, and this is what I am doing in asking the question "Did Jesus exist".

Quote:

Even in your own response, you have given two different definitions of 'Jesus', one in terms of the New Testament literature and the other in terms of a letter alleged to have been written to the King of Edessa. These are not interchangeable. It makes a difference which one is being used.

They both relate to the person Jesus, the historical existence of whom is being questioned. (See the schematic)

Quote:

Similarly, different past writers on the subject have given different descriptions of Jesus. By giving different meanings to the term they are in effect developing a range of different hypotheses which do not reduce simply to a binary choice between two options of which one is a direct negation of the other.

But I am not going into all the hypotheses about his description or what words may have been genuine, but rather I am dwelling on the very general and fundamental concept of historicity. In this context, the positive and negative historicity are fundamental, and in one sense take priority.

To take your example of 'Caesar': there were in fact many historical individuals referred to by the name 'Caesar'. It cannot simply be assumed that all references to 'Caesar' refer to the same individual: in fact, this is demonstrably false.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.