stonewall1012

Actually if Patcleaver would just own up to the position that yes he is making some assumptions... oooh yikes like historians have never made assumptions.

Jeffery, I'm not sure what your purpose is but while I agree with you it's bordering on belligerant.

Finally the true significance(at least for me) is patcleavers assertion that a person proposing a negation is given the "default" position. I personally think this is the most significant claim that he has made and I for one would like to test it...

Claim: All negative assertions are True unless proven False. (this was the best I could do in trying to render his burden of proof / default assertion into a logical statement)

We will call this claim claim "A"
A is a positive assertion.
A is not a negative assertion.
A is not a proven assertion
Therefor A is neither proven to be true or false
(This assertion can not even prove if its own claim is logically valid. Big logical problem.)

However, as I thought through this I discovered this:
Claim: All positive assertions are True unless proven False.

We will call this claim "B"
B is a positive assertion
Therefore B is True unless proven False.
(it at least is capable of validating its own argument)

Now I am NOT arguing that all positive assertions should assumed true unless proven false. My only point was that logically speaking the positive claim that negative claims are to be assumed true unless proven false is logically questionable. If you wish to can try and reword the claim to make it a negative claim I it was going to take more thought than I could put into.
thanks

spamandham

This tangent on burdens of proof is simply silly. This is not a formal debate, it's a discussion. The burden of proof rests on whoever cares enough to accept it.

If someone makes a claim you doubt and don't judge to be be worth investigating, be it positive or negative, and refuses to support it, you simply summarily dismiss the claim. If you find the claim interesting enough to investigate it, then the burden is now your own.

Jeffrey Gibson

But it was asserted in, and as a vital part of, a (i.e., this) discussion (notably by one who now is, apparently for convenience sake, excusing himself from having to abide by the constraints of his own dictum) that anyone who makes positive proposals must provide evidence for them.

And I'll be hanged if I know where the rule can be found that it's only in formal debate that participants are expected to bound by the burden of proof convention.

Jeffrey

patcleaver

In post 41 I said:

In post 57, in response to Jeffrey's claim that I was being inconsistent about proof of documents, I repeated:

In post 66, I said:

I have had to repeat that I am assuming things so often now that I feel like a broken record.

---------------

Jeffery does this kind of thing a lot, I try not to hold it against him, I just try to ignore it.

The rule is, that if you want to establish something as a fact, and it is disputed, then you either have to prove that its likely to be true or we should presume that it is not a fact.

Assertions can be positive or negative. Positive assertions can usually be stated without any negations (e.g. negative words like not or negative prefixes like un- or words that have negitive meanings)

It is unusual that someone really wants to establish a negative fact, but it happens sometimes.

There are really two different cases here.
1. someone states a negative assertion as a denial of a positive assertion.
2. someone states a negative assertion as a fact that they want established.

You can only tell whether a negative assertion is case 1 or case 2 by examining the context in which they state their negative assertion.

Ambiguity is commonly a problem with language, and I think that this is a typical example.

If I am trying to establish a negative assertion as a fact, then I have to support it just like I would have to support a positive assertion.

If I am stating a negative assertion as a denial of a positive assertion then I do not have to support it at all. A denial of a positive assertion does not shift the burden of proof.

If you claim that there are unicorns, and I respond that there are no unicorns, then I do not have to prove there are no unicorns. It is the default position that the existence of unicorns is not a fact, and that is all that I intended when I state that there are no unicorns. Nobody should believe your assertion that there are unicorns unless you prove that its true. My denial that there are unicorns does not shift the burden of proof to me.

If you claim, as an historical fact, that "Europeans reached North America before Columbus", and I deny that you're correct by saying that "no Europeans reached North America before Columbus", then it is not necessary for me to provide any support for my denial.

On the other hand, if I claim, as an historical fact, that "no Europeans reached North America before Columbus", then I should not be believed unless I prove it with evidence and arguments.

You have to understand the context and history of the discussion to determine whether the negative statement is (1) an assertion of a negative fact or (2) merely a denial of a positive assertion of fact. Negitive assertions are usually in category 2 denials of positive assertions.

Note that I am using proof as its commonly understood in the field of history e.g. evidence and arguments that establish that something is more likely than not. History is the study of probabilities - not absolutes.

spamandham

The whole point is, there is no rule outside a formal structure.

The only consequence of failing to abide by 'burden of proof' expactations, is that the claims that are not supported will be dismissed, as I stated previously. You're free to dismiss this claim if you want, as I view it self evident and have no plans to further support it.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'd be very much interested in seeing where it's set out that one should only ask for evidence of a claim when the requester disputes the validity of this claim, let alone that this is the only time that a claimant has the responsibility to provide evidence for his/her claims . After all, scholarly discourse from Plato onwards (witness the elenchus of Socrates) is full of examples of people asking for evidence when they don't know whether to agree or not with a claim being made and want to know if there really is any warrant for accepting what the claimant asserts. And so far as I am aware, asking to be persuaded/convinced that they should think along the lines that the claimant recommends they do is always considered perfectly legitimate (and BTW, it's considered a sure sign that a claimant has no evidence and really does not know whet he/she is talking about when he/she begins to set up, dictates, and/or changes the conditions under which he/she will respond to the request).

But if you have evidence to the contrary, especially from books such as Connie Missimer's Good Arguments (or via: amazon.co.uk) or Rottenberg's The Elements of Argument (or via: amazon.co.uk) or other guides to the use of reason and evidence in argument like Kahane and Kavender's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: the Use of Reason in Everyday Life (or via: amazon.co.uk), I've be very grateful to see it.


Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm .. says who? Besides that, even discussions have a "formal structure". Otherwise they would not be recognizable as "discussions", nor could "discussion, however informal, be carried out without it. Witness Pete Brown's responses to questions.

Jeffrey

patcleaver

Nag Hammadi was carbon dated to 350 CE. Handwriting analysis to earlier dates is just speculation.

I am not aware of any evidence that John was early except handwriting analysis of some fragments of papyrus, and that is hardly more then speculation.

I read somewher that John seems to harmonize differences between Matthew and Luke and was probably dependent on both of them.

Is there any evidence that John was written before the 4th century except handwriting analysis.

Pliny is not an unambiguous reference to followers of Jesus of Nazareth. For example, Justin Martyr says that the Samaritans are followers of Simon Magus and are called Christians. There were certainly lots of Samaritans at that time.

There is no "hard testimony" or reliable "physical evidence" and Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny have been discredited as witnesses to Jesus or Nazareth on many threads here.

patcleaver

Finally, Jeffery at least seems to tell Spamandham what he disputes.

If someone believes that I am probably wrong about something, then they should just say so instead of beating around the bush.

In post 41, I explained that "I agree that Historia Augusta is a forgery, but so are all the thousands of ancient religious documents. ... For arguments sake, assuming that the letter from Emperor Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul in Historia Augusta is reliable ..." The letter says:

On its face, this part of the letter says that the worshipers of Serapis were called Christians, and the bishops of Christ are also devotees of Serapis, and implies that Serapis was called Christ by a faction of his worshipers.

I specifically said that I thought the document was probably a forgery, and that I specifically said that I was assuming that the letter was reliable for the sake of argument.

I do not have to support something that I specifically said that I was assuming for the sake of argument.

The worshipers of Serapis may or may not have referred to Serapis as Christ.

Jeffery, let me know if there is something else I said that you really dispute so I can respond to it.

Amaleq13

And a request for the evidence upon which you based your claim speaks directly to your responsibility as an intelligent, rational participant in a discussion in this forum. One need not oppose the claim, however, in order to request to see the supporting evidence. One needs only to find the claim interesting.

BC&H, whether you like it or not, aspires to something more than the sharing of nutty, unsubstantiated notions amongst ignorant amateurs that can be found throughout the internet. The standards here are, as a result, somewhat higher than the average discussion board. All opinions are not equal here as anyone with a couple brain cells has already concluded. The best way to differentiate between a reasoned conclusion based on evidence and the babbling of an ignorant moron with an axe to grind is by consideration of the evidence.

The evidence and argument regarding the Christian population in Alexandria is exactly what you need to get in the habit of providing before anyone asks. It is both irrational and illogical and unhelpful to refrain from providing it if you have it or to complain about anyone requesting it.