Toto

Everyone who has disagreed with you has been very specific.

You are unclear on the meaning of postulate, and you seem to be unable to explain why you think a historical investigation should start with postulates about the conclusion.

J-D

No. I didn't say anything about Doug Shaver's postulates.

J-D

No, I did not give any evaluation of Doug Shaver's conclusion.

J-D

You acknowledged previously that a comparative evaluation of alternative postulates is an essential part of the process. But you've never done one.No, it doesn't.

J-D

You acknowledged previously that a comparative evaluation of alternative postulates is an essential part of the process. But you've never done one.No, it doesn't. However, if you insist that they are postulates then, on your own say-so, you should do a comparative evaluation of them.

aa5874

Please evaluate what you wrote before you post.

J-D

If X and Y are exclusive and exhaustive possibilities, then the tabulation you should get might be something like this (instead of the hopelessly misconceived pig’s breakfast you produced):

(100%) X is definitely the case....................Y is definitely not the case (0%)
(95%) X is very highly likely to be the case....................There is little or no chance that Y is the case (5%)
(75%) X is probably the case....................Y is probably not the case (25%)
(55%) X is more likely than not to be the case....................It is more likely than not that Y is not the case (45%)
(50%) The chances that X is the case are about even....................The chances that Y is the case are about even (50%)
(45%) It is more likely than not that X is not the case....................Y is more likely than not to be the case (55%)
(25%) X is probably not the case....................Y is probably the case (75%)
(5%) There is little or no chance that X is the case....................Y is very highly likely to be the case (95%)
(0%) X is definitely not the case....................Y is definitely the case(100%)

J-D

From examples I know of, there are a number of reasons why people put names on texts.

Sometimes it’s done with the intention of identifying the author accurately, and this includes both cases where the identification is accurate and cases where a misunderstanding or garbling in transmission has produced a false attribution. Sometimes it’s done to create false associations, such as giving the text an unmerited air of authority, and this includes both cases where the person named as author really exists (or existed) and cases where the person named never really existed but is the subject of a widespread accepted belief (or, at least, acceptance of the belief was sufficiently widespread before the attribution was made for the attribution to have some effect). Sometimes it’s done to disguise the identity of the author or some specific personal information (for example, gender). Sometimes it’s done as a literary conceit (as, for example, in the case of the description of part of the first Sherlock Holmes story as an extract from the reminiscences of Dr Watson, in which case nobody intended or expected any reader to suppose that the Dr Watson referred to was a real person or that anybody thought he was).

There may be others I haven’t thought of, but in any case in what you have written here so far I don’t see sufficient evaluation of alternatives to support a conclusion about what the most likely explanation is in this case.

J-D

I know what I wrote, and it wasn't the same as what you said I wrote.

aa5874

You are now denying what you wrote???