spamandham

I did already "back them up" (refer back to the post where I started the Santa analogy discussion) using the same degree of scientific rigor that has been used to extract the HJ from the Gospels, which is to say, none at all. You rightfully balked at it, but then absurdly went on to demand more from the analogy.

Like you said and I agreed, we seem to be engaged in separate discussions, and it isn't worthwhile.

Rick Sumner

Here is what you said:

No word about what legends we would have. No word about what criteria we might employ. No word about how the analogy might actually work, except that it would be really great if it worked the way you wanted it to.

If your point is that if we hand pick our sources, line everything up just right, and only employ criteria in our heads without any actual demonstration of them, then yes, you backed up your point brilliantly.

Of course, if your point was that "Santa makes a nice comparison," which was your original statement, then I'm afraid it leaves something to desire, because you didn't actually compare anything, just made declarations, which are apparently true only by fiat.

If you think that's "back[ing anything] up" then that explains more than your posts ever could.

spamandham

Hence the use of the word might. You're trying to shift the burden of quackery onto me to disprove it. I'm not going to bite.

Suppose that we did not know anything about the historical St. Nicholas, but had only the legends to go on. We might conclude...

Roger Pearse

Argument by analogy is often fallacious, I agree. So much depends on selection, arrangement and omission.

It is a favoured argument by weak minds, who imagine that if only they can press something else into the same shape as something they want to debunk, this proves that the two are the same, proves connection, derivation, and whatever else they want to prove but usually insinuate.

We need better arguments than this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Rick Sumner

Oh, is that all it takes to validate a claim? The qualifier "might."

All right, allow me to retort.

We might not.

Rick Sumner

There are times that analogy can be quite useful. This might even be one of them, if I had any idea what was being compared. But analoging historical methods to "possible" or "might" conclusions isn't just wrong, it's wrong-headed. It's comparing epistemology with answers. . .entirely different. I'd be delighted to see how the comparison between method and method might work, but alas, I'm left to assume that it simply won't.

spamandham

That's fine, but you already made a stronger claim, which is that we *would* not. I don't expect you to back up such a claim, of course, it would be pointless and absurd for you to even try.

Rick Sumner

No I didn't. I said I was not convinced you were right. Nice effort though.

The stronger claim was actually made by you, in your assertion that the effort fails in every instance we employ it. Except, well, it doesn't. And I did provide examples of that.

It would be easier to employ revisionism if the posts weren't still immediately above you.

My claim was that the analogy to Santa is silly. Since you haven't provided an analogy that functions at all, just a list of whimsical possible conclusions (apparently), I stand by that claim.

spamandham

What we are discussing is not an analogy (though we have been loosely refering to it as such), since the subject (textual analysis) and the targets (texts) are the same. Instead, we are discussing potential control cases: Santa, Augustus, etc.

If the technique being discussed is valid, we do not need to discuss potential control cases, we could instead discuss actual control cases scholars have used to validate it. Are you aware of any?

spamandham

I guess I didn't realize how much power I hold over your opinions. Normally, people justify their positions rather than waiting for someone else to persuade them they are wrong.