J-D

No, I am not denying what I wrote, I am denying that what you said I wrote is the same as what I wrote.

mountainman

How many dictionary citations do you need?


The schematic depicts that historical investigations start with postulates (in one separate box) about the evidence (in another separate box) in order to produce theoretical conclusions (in another separate box).

There is nothing in theory to prevent the conclusions so produced to be taken as postulates in a subsequent investigation. I have called this process by the name of re-engineering. It appears to be able to reengineer all the mainstream HJ and non mainstream MJ theories to a very simple model.

Why is this even possible?

mountainman

The intended meaning was to be able to uniquely specify your own preferred formulation of your own hypothesis (related to whether Paul is to be considered a genuine and authentic historical character) in a manner which is explicit when set alongside other competing hypotheses of other posters, theorists and investigators.

My point is that the evidence itself cannot tell us one way or the other as to whether Paul (for example) was a genuine historical character or a fabricated historical character, and at the most fundamental level we take on board one hypotheses or the other, and must test out which of these two competing mutually exclusive hypotheses might be the one which best fits with the rest of the hypotheses that we have similarly had to make with respect to ALL the other evidence items.

mountainman

No. They are MUTUALLY exclusive and exhaustive possibilties. Y = not X.
X, not X (,and null) are mutually exclusive.

We are dealing with X and not X where X is the postulate that the evidence is genuine and authentic, and not X is the postulate that the evidence is NOT genuine and authentic (i.e. fabricated and inauthentic). These are NOT the same postulate. These are two different and antithetical postulates. They are also mutually exclusive.

The historian selecting the first postulate pronounces authenticity and in the selection of the second postulate denounces inauthenticity. The historian may choose either postulate but not both, or choose to select neither postulate by selecting the zero position (no statement, null statement, seeks refuge in silence, etc). These three postulates are such that they are MUTUALLY exclusive.

J-D

You contradict yourself. If it can't tell us anything, then it's not evidence; if it's evidence, then it can tell us something.

J-D

If X and Y are MUTUALLY exclusive and exhaustive possibilities, then by definition their probabilities are not independent because by definition they must sum to 100%, and 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%)Obviously X and not-X are not the same postulate, but it should be equally obvious that they are not logically independent. The truth of either is logically equivalent to the falsehood of the other, by definition, and the probabilities are not independent since, by definition, they must sum to 100%.

Thus 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....................not-X is definitely not the case (0%)
(95%) X is very highly likely to be the case....................There is little or no chance that not-X is the case (5%)
(75%) X is probably the case....................not-X is probably not the case (25%)
(55%) X is more likely than not to be the case....................It is more likely than not that not-X is not the case (45%)
(50%) The chances that X is the case are about even....................The chances that not-X is the case are about even (50%)
(45%) It is more likely than not that X is not the case....................not-X is more likely than not to be the case (55%)
(25%) X is probably not the case....................not-X is probably the case (75%)
(5%) There is little or no chance that X is the case....................not-X is very highly likely to be the case (95%)
(0%) X is definitely not the case....................not-X is definitely the case(100%)The absence of a statement is not a statement. Adopting no postulate is not adopting a postulate.

J-D

It is a fact that the text of Romans incorporates both attributions to Paul and attributions to Tertius, but you have offered no explanation for this fact; in particular, as I mentioned before, you have offered no reason to accept the view that the Paul mentioned in Romans and the Tertius mentioned in Romans were different people.

mountainman

At the same time they have also been quite vague on specific issues in question, namely the choice underlying the selection and formulation of postulatory statement that are to serve in representing the evidence items themselves in discussion. For example, the postulates you provided above for the issue related to the authenticity of "Paul", were shown to be vague and to be reduceable to the postulate "Paul was either a genuine historical character or maybe he wasn't." What do you expect to learn by employing this specific postulate aside from exercising vagueness?

mountainman

There is no contradiction in my statement. You appear to have made the fallacy of confusing evidence and postulates about the evidence. Read the following and meditate upon the notion that Carrier is using the term theories as a synonym for the word hypotheses (and thus postulates). The evidence is mute. We author postulates of our own invention. These postulates are just basic statements about the silent evidence.

mountainman

By definition only one is 100% correct.



An item of evidence can be ULTIMATELY considered to be either historically genuine or historically ingenuine (i.e. fabricated). It cannot be both at the same time. Therefore all your options between 0 and 100 can be scrapped as impossible, and you are left with the postulates labelled 100% and 0%. which is exactly the same as the CUT-DOWN version I provided somewhere above, with these two options listed together with the NULL option.