Originally Posted by mountainman

The first example is an event which did not occur - namely finding Socrates name missing from a list of contemporary Athenians. The second example is a document that asserts Socrates was not real, did not have a birth, a life or a death. If we accept this as a fiction or a fabrication then it represents the assertion of events which did not occur. The 3rd example, A forged copy of Socrates birth certificate, is the fabrication of evidence - the Athenian Registrar of Births did not issue (it was an event which did not occur) this forgery. The 4th example, of a fabricated account declaring Socrates was the code name for another Athenian, is a further example of the assertion of events which did not happen.

The first example - often called argument from silence - I see as just one category of negative evidence. Here events which were expected did not occur. Other categories include forgery and fabrication, where evidence is tendered as genuine and authentic positive evidence towards one conclusion or hypohesis or another, but then classified as inauthentic negative evidence (relative to the overall conclusion or hypothesis) on the basis that the event - the genuine manufacture of the evidence item - is assessed as not having occurred, it having been fabricated or forged.

In all cases negative evidence can be seen as events that did not occur. In the case of the 1st example, the events that did not occur are distinguished by being expected, in the case of the 2nd-4th examples, the events that did not occur are discovered by identifying the fraud or the fabrication for what it is.

Originally Posted by mountainman

I see these as examples of negative evidence.

Originally Posted by J-D

Of course you are able to confuse the issues if you want to. The question is why you would want to.

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Go ahead. No one can stop you, obviously.

Originally Posted by mountainman

A professional investigation into any series of events in which forgery and fabrication is suspected must by necessity classify the evidence into that which is positive and that which is negative.

Originally Posted by mountainman

One application of such a method implies that a separate accounting must be made of the totals of the positive evidence and the totals of the negative evidence, and explanations must be provided for BOTH.

Why would I want to do this? To clearly point out via quantification that there are indications that there is a great amount of negative (as distinct from positive) evidence associated with the history of christianity, century by century from its origins (in century X) to the present century.

Originally Posted by J-D

No. There is no such necessity.

Originally Posted by J-D

If pointing out anything clearly is your objective, you are more likely to achieve it if you abandon all use of the terms 'positive evidence' and 'negative evidence' in favour of clearer forms of expression.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Can you provide one or more example alternatives?

Originally Posted by mountainman

Orinarily this may be the case, but as we have discussed here, the primary objective is to discuss the foundational hypotheses that may be perceived to exist in the field of the history of christian origins and surrounding the question of the historicity of Jesus (and of course other figures).

The subscription/provisional acceptance/testing of the two hypotheses: that Jesus existed in history and that he did not, can be perceived to be a very fundamental. The best way I can think of in modelling these two antithetical hypotheses, as argued above, is via a positive and a negative, and this naturally arises in the statement of the two hypotheses. The terms positive and negative evidence seem appropriate for this specific context.

Originally Posted by mountainman

If you can demonstrate the fallacy of these further two examples, I will stop and thank you for setting me straight.