Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-09-2011, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Different weights given to different pieces of the evidence is achieved by the formulation of appropriate hypotheses about the different pieces of evidence separately, item by item, according to the authorship of the investigator. The weightings are able to be placed on any attribute of the evidence, and an example of the this discussed in this thread is the allocation of a weighting for historicity as a number between 0 and 100 representing a positive authentic historical existence (eg: Bob Marley) , or a number between 0 and -100 representing a degree of negative - fabricated and inauthentic - historical existence (eg: a known fabricated figure such as Bilbo Baggins). Weightings can be applied to anything, but they are applied by graduating the hypotheses associated with each evidence item, as I have been consistently arguing.

That's not how it works.

For example, a key item is the claim by historicists that early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified. We know that a lot of people were in fact crucified, so this is not an unlikely claim. How you weigh that is subjective, and has nothing to do with the hypotheses that the investigator starts out with.

The claim is hypothetical. It represents a general hypothesis that "early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified". You will note in the diagram two sets of hypotheses - one as a series against each evidence item, and a second series of general hypotheses related to anything from the price of cheeze to the weather. The claim belongs to this category of hypotheses, and it reminds me of the "Criterion of Embarrassment", which Carrier has already dealt with via Bayesian analysis.

Quote:

Or take the claim that the reference to James as the brother of the Lord is some sort of evidence. How you evaluate this does not depend on the hypotheses that you start out with.

I think that in this claim, people are examining the name of James as it appears in various manuscripts. (Are you refering to the minor "TF" here?). In any event, investigators may forumulate a great range of hypotheses about the Lord, about James, and about their relationship, and some of these hypotheses will be that these people were historical and brothers by blood, or historical and brothers by faith, etc, etc ... including hypotheses that relate to non existence, both of the people, and of the relationship. The investigator evaluates all the possible combinations and permutations of hypotheses that can be made in regard to James, in regard to the Lord, and in regard to their relationship,etc. The investigator will then prefer one or other of these sets of hypotheses that join the three items (James, the Lord, brother). This may not be explicit. But when we read what they write on the subject, we will see that they are in fact discussing various hypotheses (and obviously NOT discussing other hypotheses).

Quote:

Therefore, unless you can present some other factor(s), I have demonstrated above that the different conclusions must arise from different sets of hypotheses that each investigator is provisionally employing (quite often implicitly and not explicitly) against each item of evidence.

I think you are wrong. It might help if you gave a specific example of how your hypotheses would work.

OK. One example might be to find two independent theorists (mainstream or otherwise) who arrive at slightly divergent conclusions. My idea is that if we were to carefully examine the hypotheses used by each, then would we find the source of the divergence in divergence of the hypotheses. I dont have anyone in mind, so you are free to nominate any two authors.

Quote:

...
I would still strongly insist, especially as the evidence about Christian origins is so fragmentary, it should become quite obvious that the different conclusions being derived are as a result of the hypotheses that each investigator is bringing to the party. ...

To say this is to insult all of these scholars. Maybe you mean to do that.

I think its the truth. I dont mean to offend anyone.

Everything is hypothetical and to see it otherwise is inappropriate to the discipline. Breakthroughs in many disciplines occur as a direct result of identifying hypotheses which are shared by all investigators in common, and held to be (provisionally) true but are not. (e.g. geocentricity). Of course the problem is to identity those specific hypotheses. And the problem of identification is exaccerbated by the use of IMPLIED hypotheses, that can only be resolved by carefully analysing the statements which serve to hide the implicit hypotheses, and then to make them explicit.

Sometimes it is not what people say or write, it is what they dont say or write that allows us to analyse what their implied hypothesis must resemble in an explicit form.

Toto · 12-09-2011, 02:00 AM

I don't seem to be getting through. I'm not going to continue here.

Doug Shaver · 12-09-2011, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Any instances of defective reasoning within the "Black Box Theory Generator" (refering to the diagram prepared above) will be immediately detected very quickly by the process of peer-review, and the theory will be required to be adjusted and republished.

That generator exists only in your imagination.

J-D · 12-09-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Different weights given to different pieces of the evidence is achieved by the formulation of appropriate hypotheses about the different pieces of evidence separately, item by item, according to the authorship of the investigator. The weightings are able to be placed on any attribute of the evidence, and an example of the this discussed in this thread is the allocation of a weighting for historicity as a number between 0 and 100 representing a positive authentic historical existence (eg: Bob Marley) , or a number between 0 and -100 representing a degree of negative - fabricated and inauthentic - historical existence (eg: a known fabricated figure such as Bilbo Baggins). Weightings can be applied to anything, but they are applied by graduating the hypotheses associated with each evidence item, as I have been consistently arguing.

That's not how it works.

For example, a key item is the claim by historicists that early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified. We know that a lot of people were in fact crucified, so this is not an unlikely claim. How you weigh that is subjective, and has nothing to do with the hypotheses that the investigator starts out with.

The claim is hypothetical. It represents a general hypothesis that "early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified". You will note in the diagram two sets of hypotheses - one as a series against each evidence item, and a second series of general hypotheses related to anything from the price of cheeze to the weather. The claim belongs to this category of hypotheses, and it reminds me of the "Criterion of Embarrassment", which Carrier has already dealt with via Bayesian analysis.

Quote:

Or take the claim that the reference to James as the brother of the Lord is some sort of evidence. How you evaluate this does not depend on the hypotheses that you start out with.

I think that in this claim, people are examining the name of James as it appears in various manuscripts. (Are you refering to the minor "TF" here?). In any event, investigators may forumulate a great range of hypotheses about the Lord, about James, and about their relationship, and some of these hypotheses will be that these people were historical and brothers by blood, or historical and brothers by faith, etc, etc ... including hypotheses that relate to non existence, both of the people, and of the relationship. The investigator evaluates all the possible combinations and permutations of hypotheses that can be made in regard to James, in regard to the Lord, and in regard to their relationship,etc. The investigator will then prefer one or other of these sets of hypotheses that join the three items (James, the Lord, brother). This may not be explicit. But when we read what they write on the subject, we will see that they are in fact discussing various hypotheses (and obviously NOT discussing other hypotheses).

Quote:

Therefore, unless you can present some other factor(s), I have demonstrated above that the different conclusions must arise from different sets of hypotheses that each investigator is provisionally employing (quite often implicitly and not explicitly) against each item of evidence.

I think you are wrong. It might help if you gave a specific example of how your hypotheses would work.

OK. One example might be to find two independent theorists (mainstream or otherwise) who arrive at slightly divergent conclusions. My idea is that if we were to carefully examine the hypotheses used by each, then would we find the source of the divergence in divergence of the hypotheses. I dont have anyone in mind, so you are free to nominate any two authors.

Quote:

...
I would still strongly insist, especially as the evidence about Christian origins is so fragmentary, it should become quite obvious that the different conclusions being derived are as a result of the hypotheses that each investigator is bringing to the party. ...

To say this is to insult all of these scholars. Maybe you mean to do that.

I think its the truth. I dont mean to offend anyone.

Everything is hypothetical and to see it otherwise is inappropriate to the discipline. Breakthroughs in many disciplines occur as a direct result of identifying hypotheses which are shared by all investigators in common, and held to be (provisionally) true but are not. (e.g. geocentricity). Of course the problem is to identity those specific hypotheses. And the problem of identification is exaccerbated by the use of IMPLIED hypotheses, that can only be resolved by carefully analysing the statements which serve to hide the implicit hypotheses, and then to make them explicit.

Sometimes it is not what people say or write, it is what they dont say or write that allows us to analyse what their implied hypothesis must resemble in an explicit form.

'Hypothesis' and 'statement' are not synonyms. Not all statements are hypotheses. Some statements are hypotheses and some are not. If you are unable to make the distinction, you are not going to get far.

mountainman · 12-10-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Any instances of defective reasoning within the "Black Box Theory Generator" (refering to the diagram prepared above) will be immediately detected very quickly by the process of peer-review, and the theory will be required to be adjusted and republished.

That generator exists only in your imagination.

Since both the entire set of hypotheses (related to the evidence etc) and the set of hypothetical conclusions in the field of ancient history are in a sense existent in our collective hypothetical imagination, the process by which our hypotheses become conclusions (i.e. deductive and inductive reasoning, etc) must also necessarily be, in the same sense, in our imagination. All historical conclusions are ever only hypothetical.

mountainman · 12-10-2011, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Different weights given to different pieces of the evidence is achieved by the formulation of appropriate hypotheses about the different pieces of evidence separately, item by item, according to the authorship of the investigator. The weightings are able to be placed on any attribute of the evidence, and an example of the this discussed in this thread is the allocation of a weighting for historicity as a number between 0 and 100 representing a positive authentic historical existence (eg: Bob Marley) , or a number between 0 and -100 representing a degree of negative - fabricated and inauthentic - historical existence (eg: a known fabricated figure such as Bilbo Baggins). Weightings can be applied to anything, but they are applied by graduating the hypotheses associated with each evidence item, as I have been consistently arguing.

That's not how it works.

For example, a key item is the claim by historicists that early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified. We know that a lot of people were in fact crucified, so this is not an unlikely claim. How you weigh that is subjective, and has nothing to do with the hypotheses that the investigator starts out with.

The claim is hypothetical. It represents a general hypothesis that "early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified". You will note in the diagram two sets of hypotheses - one as a series against each evidence item, and a second series of general hypotheses related to anything from the price of cheeze to the weather. The claim belongs to this category of hypotheses, and it reminds me of the "Criterion of Embarrassment", which Carrier has already dealt with via Bayesian analysis.

Quote:

Or take the claim that the reference to James as the brother of the Lord is some sort of evidence. How you evaluate this does not depend on the hypotheses that you start out with.

I think that in this claim, people are examining the name of James as it appears in various manuscripts. (Are you refering to the minor "TF" here?). In any event, investigators may forumulate a great range of hypotheses about the Lord, about James, and about their relationship, and some of these hypotheses will be that these people were historical and brothers by blood, or historical and brothers by faith, etc, etc ... including hypotheses that relate to non existence, both of the people, and of the relationship. The investigator evaluates all the possible combinations and permutations of hypotheses that can be made in regard to James, in regard to the Lord, and in regard to their relationship,etc. The investigator will then prefer one or other of these sets of hypotheses that join the three items (James, the Lord, brother). This may not be explicit. But when we read what they write on the subject, we will see that they are in fact discussing various hypotheses (and obviously NOT discussing other hypotheses).

Quote:

Therefore, unless you can present some other factor(s), I have demonstrated above that the different conclusions must arise from different sets of hypotheses that each investigator is provisionally employing (quite often implicitly and not explicitly) against each item of evidence.

I think you are wrong. It might help if you gave a specific example of how your hypotheses would work.

OK. One example might be to find two independent theorists (mainstream or otherwise) who arrive at slightly divergent conclusions. My idea is that if we were to carefully examine the hypotheses used by each, then would we find the source of the divergence in divergence of the hypotheses. I dont have anyone in mind, so you are free to nominate any two authors.

Quote:

...
I would still strongly insist, especially as the evidence about Christian origins is so fragmentary, it should become quite obvious that the different conclusions being derived are as a result of the hypotheses that each investigator is bringing to the party. ...

To say this is to insult all of these scholars. Maybe you mean to do that.

I think its the truth. I dont mean to offend anyone.

Everything is hypothetical and to see it otherwise is inappropriate to the discipline. Breakthroughs in many disciplines occur as a direct result of identifying hypotheses which are shared by all investigators in common, and held to be (provisionally) true but are not. (e.g. geocentricity). Of course the problem is to identity those specific hypotheses. And the problem of identification is exaccerbated by the use of IMPLIED hypotheses, that can only be resolved by carefully analysing the statements which serve to hide the implicit hypotheses, and then to make them explicit.

Sometimes it is not what people say or write, it is what they dont say or write that allows us to analyse what their implied hypothesis must resemble in an explicit form.

'Hypothesis' and 'statement' are not synonyms. Not all statements are hypotheses. Some statements are hypotheses and some are not. If you are unable to make the distinction, you are not going to get far.

All explicit hypotheses in ancient history are statements. All implicit hypotheses in ancient history are either contained in statements or are conspicuous by their absence in statements.

J-D · 12-10-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Any instances of defective reasoning within the "Black Box Theory Generator" (refering to the diagram prepared above) will be immediately detected very quickly by the process of peer-review, and the theory will be required to be adjusted and republished.

That generator exists only in your imagination.

Since both the entire set of hypotheses (related to the evidence etc) and the set of hypothetical conclusions in the field of ancient history are in a sense existent in our collective hypothetical imagination, the process by which our hypotheses become conclusions (i.e. deductive and inductive reasoning, etc) must also necessarily be, in the same sense, in our imagination. All historical conclusions are ever only hypothetical.

Just as you err if you suggest that 'hypothesis' and 'statement' are synonyms, so you also err if you suggest that 'hypothetical' and 'imaginary' are synonyms. They are not.

All historical conclusions--all scientific conclusions--all human conclusion whatever--are to some degree provisional. Human beings being fallible, none of our conclusions are necessarily incorrigible.

But being provisional, fallible, and corrigible is not identical with being hypothetical.

J-D · 12-10-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Different weights given to different pieces of the evidence is achieved by the formulation of appropriate hypotheses about the different pieces of evidence separately, item by item, according to the authorship of the investigator. The weightings are able to be placed on any attribute of the evidence, and an example of the this discussed in this thread is the allocation of a weighting for historicity as a number between 0 and 100 representing a positive authentic historical existence (eg: Bob Marley) , or a number between 0 and -100 representing a degree of negative - fabricated and inauthentic - historical existence (eg: a known fabricated figure such as Bilbo Baggins). Weightings can be applied to anything, but they are applied by graduating the hypotheses associated with each evidence item, as I have been consistently arguing.

That's not how it works.

For example, a key item is the claim by historicists that early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified. We know that a lot of people were in fact crucified, so this is not an unlikely claim. How you weigh that is subjective, and has nothing to do with the hypotheses that the investigator starts out with.

The claim is hypothetical. It represents a general hypothesis that "early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified". You will note in the diagram two sets of hypotheses - one as a series against each evidence item, and a second series of general hypotheses related to anything from the price of cheeze to the weather. The claim belongs to this category of hypotheses, and it reminds me of the "Criterion of Embarrassment", which Carrier has already dealt with via Bayesian analysis.

Quote:

Or take the claim that the reference to James as the brother of the Lord is some sort of evidence. How you evaluate this does not depend on the hypotheses that you start out with.

I think that in this claim, people are examining the name of James as it appears in various manuscripts. (Are you refering to the minor "TF" here?). In any event, investigators may forumulate a great range of hypotheses about the Lord, about James, and about their relationship, and some of these hypotheses will be that these people were historical and brothers by blood, or historical and brothers by faith, etc, etc ... including hypotheses that relate to non existence, both of the people, and of the relationship. The investigator evaluates all the possible combinations and permutations of hypotheses that can be made in regard to James, in regard to the Lord, and in regard to their relationship,etc. The investigator will then prefer one or other of these sets of hypotheses that join the three items (James, the Lord, brother). This may not be explicit. But when we read what they write on the subject, we will see that they are in fact discussing various hypotheses (and obviously NOT discussing other hypotheses).

Quote:

Therefore, unless you can present some other factor(s), I have demonstrated above that the different conclusions must arise from different sets of hypotheses that each investigator is provisionally employing (quite often implicitly and not explicitly) against each item of evidence.

I think you are wrong. It might help if you gave a specific example of how your hypotheses would work.

OK. One example might be to find two independent theorists (mainstream or otherwise) who arrive at slightly divergent conclusions. My idea is that if we were to carefully examine the hypotheses used by each, then would we find the source of the divergence in divergence of the hypotheses. I dont have anyone in mind, so you are free to nominate any two authors.

Quote:

...
I would still strongly insist, especially as the evidence about Christian origins is so fragmentary, it should become quite obvious that the different conclusions being derived are as a result of the hypotheses that each investigator is bringing to the party. ...

To say this is to insult all of these scholars. Maybe you mean to do that.

I think its the truth. I dont mean to offend anyone.

Everything is hypothetical and to see it otherwise is inappropriate to the discipline. Breakthroughs in many disciplines occur as a direct result of identifying hypotheses which are shared by all investigators in common, and held to be (provisionally) true but are not. (e.g. geocentricity). Of course the problem is to identity those specific hypotheses. And the problem of identification is exaccerbated by the use of IMPLIED hypotheses, that can only be resolved by carefully analysing the statements which serve to hide the implicit hypotheses, and then to make them explicit.

Sometimes it is not what people say or write, it is what they dont say or write that allows us to analyse what their implied hypothesis must resemble in an explicit form.

'Hypothesis' and 'statement' are not synonyms. Not all statements are hypotheses. Some statements are hypotheses and some are not. If you are unable to make the distinction, you are not going to get far.

All explicit hypotheses in ancient history are statements. All implicit hypotheses in ancient history are either contained in statements or are conspicuous by their absence in statements.

You're making the same mistake you made earlier and which I pointed out to you earlier. All hypotheses may be statements; not all statements are hypotheses.

mountainman · 12-11-2011, 03:11 AM

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 Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Different weights given to different pieces of the evidence is achieved by the formulation of appropriate hypotheses about the different pieces of evidence separately, item by item, according to the authorship of the investigator. The weightings are able to be placed on any attribute of the evidence, and an example of the this discussed in this thread is the allocation of a weighting for historicity as a number between 0 and 100 representing a positive authentic historical existence (eg: Bob Marley) , or a number between 0 and -100 representing a degree of negative - fabricated and inauthentic - historical existence (eg: a known fabricated figure such as Bilbo Baggins). Weightings can be applied to anything, but they are applied by graduating the hypotheses associated with each evidence item, as I have been consistently arguing.

That's not how it works.

For example, a key item is the claim by historicists that early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified. We know that a lot of people were in fact crucified, so this is not an unlikely claim. How you weigh that is subjective, and has nothing to do with the hypotheses that the investigator starts out with.

The claim is hypothetical. It represents a general hypothesis that "early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified". You will note in the diagram two sets of hypotheses - one as a series against each evidence item, and a second series of general hypotheses related to anything from the price of cheeze to the weather. The claim belongs to this category of hypotheses, and it reminds me of the "Criterion of Embarrassment", which Carrier has already dealt with via Bayesian analysis.

Quote:

Or take the claim that the reference to James as the brother of the Lord is some sort of evidence. How you evaluate this does not depend on the hypotheses that you start out with.

I think that in this claim, people are examining the name of James as it appears in various manuscripts. (Are you refering to the minor "TF" here?). In any event, investigators may forumulate a great range of hypotheses about the Lord, about James, and about their relationship, and some of these hypotheses will be that these people were historical and brothers by blood, or historical and brothers by faith, etc, etc ... including hypotheses that relate to non existence, both of the people, and of the relationship. The investigator evaluates all the possible combinations and permutations of hypotheses that can be made in regard to James, in regard to the Lord, and in regard to their relationship,etc. The investigator will then prefer one or other of these sets of hypotheses that join the three items (James, the Lord, brother). This may not be explicit. But when we read what they write on the subject, we will see that they are in fact discussing various hypotheses (and obviously NOT discussing other hypotheses).

Quote:

Therefore, unless you can present some other factor(s), I have demonstrated above that the different conclusions must arise from different sets of hypotheses that each investigator is provisionally employing (quite often implicitly and not explicitly) against each item of evidence.

I think you are wrong. It might help if you gave a specific example of how your hypotheses would work.

OK. One example might be to find two independent theorists (mainstream or otherwise) who arrive at slightly divergent conclusions. My idea is that if we were to carefully examine the hypotheses used by each, then would we find the source of the divergence in divergence of the hypotheses. I dont have anyone in mind, so you are free to nominate any two authors.

Quote:

...
I would still strongly insist, especially as the evidence about Christian origins is so fragmentary, it should become quite obvious that the different conclusions being derived are as a result of the hypotheses that each investigator is bringing to the party. ...

To say this is to insult all of these scholars. Maybe you mean to do that.

I think its the truth. I dont mean to offend anyone.

Everything is hypothetical and to see it otherwise is inappropriate to the discipline. Breakthroughs in many disciplines occur as a direct result of identifying hypotheses which are shared by all investigators in common, and held to be (provisionally) true but are not. (e.g. geocentricity). Of course the problem is to identity those specific hypotheses. And the problem of identification is exaccerbated by the use of IMPLIED hypotheses, that can only be resolved by carefully analysing the statements which serve to hide the implicit hypotheses, and then to make them explicit.

Sometimes it is not what people say or write, it is what they dont say or write that allows us to analyse what their implied hypothesis must resemble in an explicit form.

'Hypothesis' and 'statement' are not synonyms. Not all statements are hypotheses. Some statements are hypotheses and some are not. If you are unable to make the distinction, you are not going to get far.

All explicit hypotheses in ancient history are statements. All implicit hypotheses in ancient history are either contained in statements or are conspicuous by their absence in statements.

You're making the same mistake you made earlier and which I pointed out to you earlier. All hypotheses may be statements; not all statements are hypotheses.

This OP is a discussion about postulates or hypotheses. Within this context examination is being made of the hypotheses (statements about the evidence) that are presently being maintained by various parties in the field of history about Christian origins.

J-D · 12-11-2011, 09:41 AM

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 Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Different weights given to different pieces of the evidence is achieved by the formulation of appropriate hypotheses about the different pieces of evidence separately, item by item, according to the authorship of the investigator. The weightings are able to be placed on any attribute of the evidence, and an example of the this discussed in this thread is the allocation of a weighting for historicity as a number between 0 and 100 representing a positive authentic historical existence (eg: Bob Marley) , or a number between 0 and -100 representing a degree of negative - fabricated and inauthentic - historical existence (eg: a known fabricated figure such as Bilbo Baggins). Weightings can be applied to anything, but they are applied by graduating the hypotheses associated with each evidence item, as I have been consistently arguing.

That's not how it works.

For example, a key item is the claim by historicists that early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified. We know that a lot of people were in fact crucified, so this is not an unlikely claim. How you weigh that is subjective, and has nothing to do with the hypotheses that the investigator starts out with.

The claim is hypothetical. It represents a general hypothesis that "early Christians would not be likely to invent the idea that their savior was crucified". You will note in the diagram two sets of hypotheses - one as a series against each evidence item, and a second series of general hypotheses related to anything from the price of cheeze to the weather. The claim belongs to this category of hypotheses, and it reminds me of the "Criterion of Embarrassment", which Carrier has already dealt with via Bayesian analysis.

Quote:

Or take the claim that the reference to James as the brother of the Lord is some sort of evidence. How you evaluate this does not depend on the hypotheses that you start out with.

I think that in this claim, people are examining the name of James as it appears in various manuscripts. (Are you refering to the minor "TF" here?). In any event, investigators may forumulate a great range of hypotheses about the Lord, about James, and about their relationship, and some of these hypotheses will be that these people were historical and brothers by blood, or historical and brothers by faith, etc, etc ... including hypotheses that relate to non existence, both of the people, and of the relationship. The investigator evaluates all the possible combinations and permutations of hypotheses that can be made in regard to James, in regard to the Lord, and in regard to their relationship,etc. The investigator will then prefer one or other of these sets of hypotheses that join the three items (James, the Lord, brother). This may not be explicit. But when we read what they write on the subject, we will see that they are in fact discussing various hypotheses (and obviously NOT discussing other hypotheses).

Quote:

Therefore, unless you can present some other factor(s), I have demonstrated above that the different conclusions must arise from different sets of hypotheses that each investigator is provisionally employing (quite often implicitly and not explicitly) against each item of evidence.

I think you are wrong. It might help if you gave a specific example of how your hypotheses would work.

OK. One example might be to find two independent theorists (mainstream or otherwise) who arrive at slightly divergent conclusions. My idea is that if we were to carefully examine the hypotheses used by each, then would we find the source of the divergence in divergence of the hypotheses. I dont have anyone in mind, so you are free to nominate any two authors.

Quote:

...
I would still strongly insist, especially as the evidence about Christian origins is so fragmentary, it should become quite obvious that the different conclusions being derived are as a result of the hypotheses that each investigator is bringing to the party. ...

To say this is to insult all of these scholars. Maybe you mean to do that.

I think its the truth. I dont mean to offend anyone.

Everything is hypothetical and to see it otherwise is inappropriate to the discipline. Breakthroughs in many disciplines occur as a direct result of identifying hypotheses which are shared by all investigators in common, and held to be (provisionally) true but are not. (e.g. geocentricity). Of course the problem is to identity those specific hypotheses. And the problem of identification is exaccerbated by the use of IMPLIED hypotheses, that can only be resolved by carefully analysing the statements which serve to hide the implicit hypotheses, and then to make them explicit.

Sometimes it is not what people say or write, it is what they dont say or write that allows us to analyse what their implied hypothesis must resemble in an explicit form.

'Hypothesis' and 'statement' are not synonyms. Not all statements are hypotheses. Some statements are hypotheses and some are not. If you are unable to make the distinction, you are not going to get far.

All explicit hypotheses in ancient history are statements. All implicit hypotheses in ancient history are either contained in statements or are conspicuous by their absence in statements.

You're making the same mistake you made earlier and which I pointed out to you earlier. All hypotheses may be statements; not all statements are hypotheses.

This OP is a discussion about postulates or hypotheses. Within this context examination is being made of the hypotheses (statements about the evidence) that are presently being maintained by various parties in the field of history about Christian origins.

'Hypotheses' and 'statements about the evidence' are not synonyms (nor are 'postulates' and 'statements about the evidence'). Some statements about the evidence are hypotheses; some are not. Your error doesn't stop being an error just because you keep repeating it.

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

12-09-2011, 02:00 AM	#362
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I don't seem to be getting through. I'm not going to continue here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.