Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-20-2011, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Here is one claim restated after all this discussion ...

the fundamental positive or negative historicity hypothesis about evidence items (En)

I attempted to introduce an idea or a principle above about just one of these infinite number of hypotheses (P1, P2 ... Pn) which might be formulated against one specific evidence item (En). Let's call it the fundamental positive or negative historicity hypothesis for that specific item of evidence.

It is represented by the selection of one, from an antithetical pair of hypotheses which cannot both be historically true - or by the null statement "Dont know or unknown or unknowable etc. The default position can in fact be taken as "I dont know" for all the items of evidence En.

....

The idea is this. Amidst the infinite series of hypotheses against every single element item En there will exist the "Fundamental (+/-) Historicity Hypothesis" related to the historicity of the evidence. The evidence we have has already been classified into a range of evidence categories discussed above (e.g. people, mss, coins, grafiti). Therefore this fundamental historicity hypothesis may have to be slighly modified to suit the category of the evidence. For people (purported historical identities) it takes this form:

Where evidence item (En) here is a person X (e.g. En = Jesus; En+1 = Paul, etc )

Positive Historicity Hypothesis: "X existed in history"
Negative Historicity Hypothesis: "X did not exist in history"

(NB: Null or Zero Hypothesis: "Dont know or unknown or unknowable etc.")

THAT IS NOT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS

I commenced another thread before this thread entitled Positive and Negative Historicity Spectrum of Jesus in which the following table was presented, and which has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread:

Simplest Positive and Negative Historicity Spectrum of Jesus

+100 = Jesus was historical

================================================== ===
ZERO = The fence upon which to balance .....
================================================== ===

-100 = Jesus was not historical

I have consistently presented a ZERO = The fence on which to balance in all the many renditions of this table in this thread, and this zero hypothesis is what I am consistently refering to when I added the third logical option between the positive and the negative hypothesis.

This has nothing to do with the formalized defintion of the null hypothesis used in statistical hypothesis testing. It never had anything to do with the null hypothesis in statistical hypothesis testing, and your comment above is out of bounds. I have used a similar expression consistently to represent something else entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

...notwithstanding that somebody used his name to add credibility to his writings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

...presupposes the conclusion that Paul existed and wrote various letters...

The NULL hypothesis, the Starting Point, is the Consensus that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

I have above argued that what I have termed the zero or the null hypothesis is empty. It represents many things such as "insufficient evidence" and "dont really know" and "the answer is unknowable" and "who gives a fig" and "unknown" and is the fundamental starting point of blissful ignorance.

The zero or null hypothesis exists for every single item of evidence and all its infinite combinations and permutations.

However I am trying to identify a specific type of null hypothesis that is the result of selection NEITHER the positive or negative historicity hypothesis as discussed above. It is also not the null hypothesis as defined in the formalized system of hypothesis acceptance testing, as I have outlined above to Toto.

Between a positive historicity hypothesis (e.g. "The James Ossuary is a genuine historical artefact") and the negative historicity hypothesis (e.g. "The James Ossuary is not a genuine historical artefact") I am allowing a zero assessment for those who provisionally either do not know, have insufficient evidence, couldn't care less, think the answer is unknowable, or with to start the investigation of the James Ossuary without any preconceived hypothesis regarding (positive or negative) historicity.

Is this any clearer?

mountainman · 12-20-2011, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If you cannot deny that Paul could have been a figment of early Christian imagination then you cannot deny that the hypothesis that Paul was not an historical figure may in fact be true, irrespective of any arguments. In case you missed bits of this thread it is about what is POSSIBLE, not probable. I am not interested in rating the hypotheses, and am only interested in identifying them. How many times must I repeat myself? Who has comprehension problems with this?

Stop repeating yourself. If you have to repeat yourself so often, consider that there is some sort of communications failure, and it is possible that you are at least partly at fault.

No one here, including Doug, has denied that there is a possibility that Paul's letters were forged in the name of a fictional person. But that is not the most likely explanation.

I will take on board all above except that last statement on the basis of what I wrote above. My intention in this thread was to try and (impartially) explore the hypothetical possibilities associated with the various theories.

Quote:

You can waste a lot of time identifying all of the mere possibilities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In case you missed bits of this thread it is about what is POSSIBLE, not probable.

A list of mere possibilities, without regard to probability, would be infinitely long.

Yes I agree. In fact there may be an infinite series (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn) of such associated with every "what, who, when, where, how and why" question an investigator asks each of the evidence items E1, E2, E3, ... En. In one sense the evidence itself is infinite, because it includes all combinations and permutations of its elements. Hopefully we have agreement on this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

To what end are we supposed to try to compile such a list?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And you are not saying anything worth discussion if you just identify a case as a possibility without discussing how you would establish it.

I have introduced a schematic and some conventions in this thread.
N/A

I find it useful in this discussion because it depicts an iterative process.
Others may disagree with the process or some with the terminology.
I have sought to achieve some form of agreement in the schematic
and have revised it a number of times during this discussion.
It is meant to provide a background for the discussion.

Here is one claim restated after all this discussion ...

the fundamental positive or negative historicity hypothesis about evidence items (En)

I attempted to introduce an idea or a principle above about just one of these infinite number of hypotheses (P1, P2 ... Pn) which might be formulated against one specific evidence item (En). Let's call it the fundamental positive or negative historicity hypothesis for that specific item of evidence.

It is represented by the selection of one, from an antithetical pair of hypotheses which cannot both be historically true - or by the null statement "Dont know or unknown or unknowable etc. The default position can in fact be taken as "I dont know" for all the items of evidence En.

I have cited above from the WIKI page on the Historical method the core principle:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Core Principle of the Historical Method

Any given source may be forged or corrupted.

Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The idea is this. Amidst the infinite series of hypotheses against every single element item En there will exist the "Fundamental (+/-) Historicity Hypothesis" related to the historicity of the evidence. The evidence we have has already been classified into a range of evidence categories discussed above (e.g. people, mss, coins, grafiti). Therefore this fundamental historicity hypothesis may have to be slighly modified to suit the category of the evidence. For people (purported historical identities) it takes this form:

Where evidence item (En) here is a person X (e.g. En = Jesus; En+1 = Paul, etc )

Positive Historicity Hypothesis: "X existed in history"
Negative Historicity Hypothesis: "X did not exist in history"

(NB: Null or Zero Hypothesis: "Dont know or unknown or unknowable etc.")

My claim is that the (+/-) historicity hypothesis must be addressed by any investigator who is examining every single item of the evidence, and is thus a fundamental concept to be understood. In the diagram this would appear against every item of evidence En. It applies especially for those investigators who for some strange reason suspect that the received "history of christian origins" contains within it a not insignificant distribution of negative evidence. (e.g. forgeries, fabrications, heresiological veneers, etc).

I am not expecting unconditional agreement on this idea, but the reason that I have attempted to discuss it here is because I see it as a very foundational principle in the field of ancient history, and one that is particularly relevant to questions surrounding "the history of christian origins".

It can't be a foundational principle in the field of ancient history when nobody in the field of ancient history follows it.

On the contrary, at post # 404 I have argued that it is in fact ALWAYS used, quite often in an implicit form, in the field, and asked two questions (one for Jesus and the other for Paul) about its universal use, and asked for any counter-examples where it could be shown it was not used. After discussing Carrier, Doherty, Detering and Hoffman, we see that they all make reference to it in one form or another.

mountainman · 12-20-2011, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Yes I agree. In fact there may be an infinite series (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn) of such associated with every "what, who, when, where, how and why" question an investigator asks each of the evidence items E1, E2, E3, ... En. In one sense the evidence itself is infinite, because it includes all combinations and permutations of its elements. Hopefully we have agreement on this issue.

The evidence is not infinite.

Anything and everything may be admitted as evidence. Whether it is relevant or not is another question. Textual sources while obviously finite, can be examined word for word against other textual sources and other evidence items. When you contemplate these permutations and combinations, they quickly start to become exceedingly large. Do we agree on this?

Quote:

Theoretically, you could come up with an unlimited (and therefore infinite) series of questions, but this does not sound like a useful way of approaching the evidence.

I received the following response at a history forum, and post it below (again) for your edification and perhaps discussion. The business of doing history is described as a "rigorously controlled what-if speculation" that iteratively processes the hypotheses that can be formulated in response to any of these unlimited series of questions.

Quote:

A Brief Sketch of History's Methodology

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have introduced a schematic and some conventions in this thread.
N/A

It is not helpful. A scientific theory involves formulating a hypothesis, testing it against the evidence, revising the theory, designing experiments, etc. But historians do not have the luxury of running experiments to generate new evidence. I don't see how you can have an iterative process when you have all of your evidence to start with.

You must see that historians have the ability to create and formulate new and revised hypotheses about pre-existing evidence. Against each element of the evidence En you can in fact have an infinite number of hypothesis (P1, P2, P3,...Pn) and you have to select which of these to provisionally explore. Some of them may be antithetical, such that both P1 and P2 cannot both be true, therefore one must test P1 and P2 separately in respect of the element En, against the entire evidence set, and so on and so forth (i.e. for each element E1, E2, E3 ...). The process is thus highly iterative. It is described above as rigorously controlled "what-if" speculation.

Doug Shaver · 12-20-2011, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Whether it is relevant or not is another question.

A question to which you have persistently exhibited a remarkable indifference.

Doug Shaver · 12-20-2011, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

(NB: Null or Zero Hypothesis: "Dont know or unknown or unknowable etc.")

I've taken three statistics courses in my academic career, and I have consulted various other sources about the basics of hypothesis testing. None of them defined the null hypothesis in anything resembling those terms.

mountainman · 12-20-2011, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Yes I agree. In fact there may be an infinite series (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn) of such associated with every "what, who, when, where, how and why" question an investigator asks each of the evidence items E1, E2, E3, ... En. In one sense the evidence itself is infinite, because it includes all combinations and permutations of its elements. Hopefully we have agreement on this issue.

The evidence is not infinite.

Anything and everything may be admitted as evidence. Whether it is relevant or not is another question.

A question to which you have persistently exhibited a remarkable indifference.

This comment was about the evidence items E1, E2, E3, ..., En. How precisely do you mean that I have persistently exhibited a remarkable indifference to the evidence? To which specific element(s) of evidence are you referring?

mountainman · 12-20-2011, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

(NB: Null or Zero Hypothesis: "Dont know or unknown or unknowable etc.")

I've taken three statistics courses in my academic career, and I have consulted various other sources about the basics of hypothesis testing. None of them defined the null hypothesis in anything resembling those terms.

I have above specifically DISCLAIMED the notion that this term as I have used it relates to the formalised term in statistical hypothesis testing. The term I used is also "ZERO HYPOTHESIS". Please read carefully what I wrote immediately above at post # 501.

Doug Shaver · 12-20-2011, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

How precisely do you mean that I have persistently exhibited a remarkable indifference to the evidence?

I didn't say you were ignoring evidence.

Doug Shaver · 12-20-2011, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have above specifically DISCLAIMED the notion that this term as I have used it relates to the formalised term in statistical hypothesis testing.

My apologies if I failed to notice your disclaimer. But isn't hypothesis testing what this thread is supposed to be about?

mountainman · 12-20-2011, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have above specifically DISCLAIMED the notion that this term as I have used it relates to the formalised term in statistical hypothesis testing.

My apologies if I failed to notice your disclaimer. But isn't hypothesis testing what this thread is supposed to be about?

Hypothesis testing is certainly highly related, but not central. The thread was exploring the role of hypotheses in general within ancient history (and thus BC&H) in their representation of the evidence. Specifically I was focussing on the hypothesis about (positive and negative) historicity (of evidence items), which I have attempted to formalize and discuss above.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.