GakuseiDon

To be fair, Richard makes that point himself on Page 13:

For example, as Porter and Thiessen have both observed, it’s inherently unlikely that any Christian author would include anything embarrassing in a written account of his beliefs, since he could choose to include or omit whatever he wanted. In contrast, it’s inherently likely that anything a Christian author included in his account, he did so for a deliberate reason, to accomplish something he wanted to accomplish, since that’s how all authors behave, especially those with a specific aim of persuasion or communication of approved views. Therefore, already the prior probability that a seemingly embarrassing detail in a Christian text is in there because it is true is low, whereas the prior probability that it is in there for a specific reason regardless of its truth is high.

And in his Section 3 "Formal Logic: The Basic Syllogism", he talks about the conclusions in terms of percentages based on the abundancy of background evidence. However, his conclusions in Examples 2 and 3 of "Syllogistic Representation of Common Historicity Criteria" simply don't flow logically from the premises, regardless of percentages. And -- to Toto -- these are supposed to be the criteria used by scholars, not apologists. These lapses in logic are curious, and contrasts with his other work which I enjoy reading very much.

Solo

Excuse me but does this mean that a guy who can't conceive of a "working wagon" with borrowed wheels is going to have the last word on the historicity of Jesus Christ ? :huh:

Jiri

Toto

I still don't see a logical lapse in Example 3. Perhaps the problem you have with that example is that the argument is starker than it is usually presented, with no saving nuance. This may be part of the intellectual exercise.

You could email Richard Carrier about it.

Toto

Whether the wheels are owned or mortgaged or borrowed, if they are attached to the wagon we generally say that it has wheels.

aa5874

The criterion of embarrassment is useless, it cannot resolve truth from fiction.

In a written statement, a woman lied that she was raped and described the fictitious ordeal, if used, the criterion of embarrassment would produce a bogus result.

In fact, the criterion of embarrassment is illogical. It is false that anything embarrassing is likely to be true.

ApostateAbe

The analysis of Carrier represented in that paragraph I think clears up some of the confusion (maybe), and I am not buying it. Every author, that is everyone in the world who writes, writes for a deliberate reason. Does it follow that everybody's writing has no regard to the truth? Of course not, because the truth is typically much more persuasive than an outright lie, and so the true is the best baseline for any effective sell. It seems a bad idea to start with the assumption that Christian authors are enormously creative storytellers who can effectively lie about anything.

GakuseiDon

To be fair, I don't think that invalidates Carrier's point. He would simply assign a percentage to the number of working wagons where the wheels were considered as part of the wagon that was owned, and establish the probability of the conclusion from that.

What I'm objecting to is that some of his conclusions simply don't follow from the premises he himself gives, as per my post on the previous page.

GakuseiDon

Let's start with this, then. Here is Example 3 again:

Major Premise 1: Cybeleans would not invent anything that would embarrass them.
Minor Premise 1: The castration of Attis would embarrass Cybeleans.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, Cybeleans did not invent the castration of Attis.

Major Premise 2: A report is either invented or it is true.
Minor Premise 2 (= Conclusion 1): The castration of Attis was not invented.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, the castration of Attis is true.

Does Minor Premise 2 follow from Conclusion 1?

aa5874

There is no argument in the passage that "everybody's writing has no regard for the truth."

And again, if you start with the assumption that Christian authors are not liars or cannot create stories, then the criterion of embarrassment would still be irrelevant.

If you believe from the start that the crucifixion did occur, the criterion of embarrassment is irrelevant, you already believe the story.

And even if you do not believe the crucifixion story from the start, the criterion of embarrassment cannot resolve the matter, it is irrelevant.

ApostateAbe

aa, I may be an asshole saying this, but I have decided that I won't gain much knowledge from arguing with you, so I will generally not respond to what you are saying. I am just giving you a heads up in case you don't want to waste your time with me or whatever.