Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 07-30-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You just have to PRODUCE the historical source or evidence for HJ and then the source or evidence will be EXAMINED for historical credibility, veracity and reliability...

1. Scholars admit that the Gospels are UNRELIABLE.

2. The HJ theory SEEKS to prove the Gospels are unreliable.

3. The historical Jesus of Nazareth has NO credible history and no corroboration.

4. A proper theory NEEDS credible data.

The HJ theory is ILLOGICAL since it is NOT based on credible historical sources..

ILLOGICAL deductions are products of logical fallacies and false dichotomies.

The HJ theory is a product of ILLOGICAL deductions produced by logical fallacies and false dichotomies.

You still have not explained how you decide what is credible and what is not.

You have NOT presented any source for US to EXAMINE for credibility, historicity, veracity and reliability.

I told you already that you SIMPLY must FIRST present the evidence and then it would be SCRUTINIZED.

This is the LOGICAL thing to do.

If a person wanted to argue AGAINST the NT and state that Pilate was a FISHERMAN then it would be ILLOGICAL to use the NT as a primary source for the claim that Pilate was FISHERMAN.

It would be LOGICAL to use some other source of antiquity which SHOWS or states that Pilate was a Fisherman.

But, Scholars who ARGUE AGAINST the NT and claim Jesus was NOT the Child of a Ghost, Not God and not the Creator, but an ordinary man of Nazareth are ILLOGICALLY using the same source that they are arguing AGAINST and simultaneously admitting that the source, the NT, is UNRELIABLE.

The HJ theory is a LOGICAL fallacy, an ILLOGICAL deduction, a product of false dichotomies.

I have not said anything about what I think is credible or reliable and what is not.

You have said a lot about what you think is credible or reliable and what is not, and you have never explained how you justify any of those decisions.

J-D · 07-30-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Avi, this is how it works: you can have a valid argument with false premises, so long as the conclusion would necessarily follow IF the premises were true.

For example:

All dogs are mammals.
William Shakespeare is a dog.
Therefore, William Shakespeare is a mammal.

The above is a valid argument despite the fact that Shakespeare is not a dog, because if he were, then given the premise "all dogs are mammals," it would follow by necessity that Shakespeare is a mammal. This is also a good example of a valid argument that produces a true conclusion even though one of its premises is false.

While the above example is perfectly valid (in the technical sense of logic we are using), it is not a sound argument. Soundness is a concept in logic that refers to valid arguments with premises that are actually true.

So, to summarize: valid arguments need not have true premises, or even true conclusions, as long as there is a deductive path from the former to the latter that abides by logical rules. A logical fallacy renders an argument invalid... in other words, it upsets the path from premises to conclusion. A logical fallacy is an error in movement from one statement to another-- it does not make any sense to say a statement ITSELF is a logical fallacy. It may be identified as the moment an argument COMMITS a logical fallacy, but saying "the HJ theory is a logical fallacy" makes the same amount of sense as saying "the taste of this dessert is yellow."

Thanks, very well written, highly instructive. Nice post.

I appreciate your patience, attempting to elaborate the fundamentals of logic. You and J-D have displayed a very sincere effort here. I am grateful.

I continue, however, to believe that you and J-D err, or, at least, have thus far failed to persuade, with regard to this question, derived from two of your earlier posts, PyramidHead, labeled "A" and "B":

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

A. The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises.

B. Validity means something very specific in logic: that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I rewrote these two passages, simplifying them, to amplify the message:

A-1. Validity has NOTHING to do with TRUTH of premises.

B-1. Validity has EVERYTHING to do with TRUTH of premises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Your rewriting of 'B' changes its meaning. B means something different from B-1. A-1 and B-1 contradict each other, but A and B don't.

So, this issue remains thorny, for me.

Let me try again to explain what I perceive as the manner in which B contradicts A:

We agree, apparently on the ostensible equivalence of A and A-1. The problem, as outlined by J-D, is with B-1, which, he claims, has a different meaning from B.

So, then, it is a matter of clarifying why I believe that B-1 accurately portrays B.

"...if the premises are true..."
The condition, here, as one engages in untangling the rat's nest of wires, is an absolute: it is not a defective capacitor, or miscalculated resistance. Someone has inserted a zener diode.

This circuit WILL NOT FUNCTION, unless, and until, the problem is resolved: ONE MUST ascertain whether or not, the premise is true. There is no third path. Either the premise is true, in which case, something MAY happen (if the rest of the circuit is correct), else, the premise is not true, in which case something else will happen, where the "else" could easily be failure to conduct electricity, at all.

Point is: the word "if" indicates a requirement, an absolute requirement, to establish the veracity of the premise.

Therefore, in my opinion, J-D errs, in claiming that my rewriting of B to B-1 has changed the meaning of B. In my opinion, B-1, and B, have the same meaning, exactly the same meaning, with respect to the word: "if".

It is that word, "if", that dictates the logic, at least, in digital circuits.

avi

I am not talking about digital circuits.

If you are not interested in understanding what I am talking about, don't pretend that you are.

J-D · 07-30-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

..... what people who are experts in logic have said.

A good primer: http://www.jcu.edu/math/vignettes/logic.htm

Quote:

The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises. Convincing an individual that the premises are, indeed, true is persuasion rather than logic.

But where does the evidence fit in to the grand scheme? I dont see it mentioned here at all. People who are experts in logic have also said that there are such things as "random truths" and "unproveable truths". I have a great respect for experienced logicians however the field being discussed in the OP is actually the field of ancient history, and therefore it is mandatory for the logicians to address the ancient historical evidence.

Here is a simple primer for experts in ancient history:

Quote:

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Methodp.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.
3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

What methods is aa5874 using to ascertain the value of the evidence? What methods are you using to ascertain the value of the evidence?

The value of what evidence? Please be specific and cite the evidence to which you are referring. Or an example of such evidence.

Any evidence that you are considering (or any evidence that aa5874 is considering, as the case may be). Of course, if you are not considering any evidence (or if aa5874 is not), then the question does not arise.

PyramidHead · 07-30-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

...

A. The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises.

B. Validity means something very specific in logic: that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
...

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

Appropriately, this is the reason logic can be translated into symbols. The rules of logic, including validity, soundness and formal fallacies, can all be expressed using syntax, with no need for semantics.

Symbols employed:

! = NOT

validity: K

Premise : S

Definition, based upon sentence "A" above:

If S then K may be TRUE or FALSE;
If !S then K may be TRUE or FALSE;

If "K" means validity, what does "K may be TRUE or FALSE" mean?? Validity may be true or false?

Quote:

Definition, based upon sentence "B" above:

If S, then K is TRUE;

That's not what sentence B says. Let K mean "the argument is valid." Let C mean "Conclusion."

If K, then (if S, then C.) Both sentences reflect this.

My first statement says it doesn't matter if S or C are factual statements that reflect the real world. That holds.

My second statement says that if S (and S1, S2 etc.) are factual statements that reflect the real world, a valid argument will necessarily entail that C is a factual statement about the real world. But even if the premises and conclusion are all false, the argument can still be valid so long as it doesn't commit any formal fallacies.

Quote:

To my way of thinking, there is accordingly a "sharp distinction" between A & B, above. One might even go so far as to label that distinction, a dichotomy.

At the very least, we ought to agree, based upon juxtaposing these two sentences, that the definition of K is ambiguous, depending upon the truthful character of S, according to "B", but, not according to "A", which explicitly repudiates a correlation between K and S.

avi

You would be very well-served to find a wiki or a good textbook on the subject of logic, instead of getting your explanations from me. I have a degree in philosophy, but I'm no Wittgenstein.

aa5874 · 07-30-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

...You would be very well-served to find a wiki or a good textbook on the subject of logic, instead of getting your explanations from me. I have a degree in philosophy, but I'm no Wittgenstein.

You should have stated that from the very start but I recognised that you really do not understand the fundamentals of logic and how to apply it.

Logic is fundamentally about reasoning.

Come, let us REASON.

It is fundamentally ILLOGICAL for Scholars to claim Jesus was baptized by John because it was embarrassing when they ought to know that Fiction stories may contain embarrassing events.

It is fundamentally ILLOGICAL for Scholars to claim that there is "multiple attestation" in UNRELIABLE sources of the NT when they ought to know that MULTIPLE versions of any Fiction story may have MULTIPLE similar events.

The HJ theory is a product of ILLOGICAL deductions which are DERIVED from false dichotomies and logical fallacies.

avi · 07-30-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

If "K" means validity, what does "K may be TRUE or FALSE" mean?? Validity may be true or false?

One of the frustrating aspects of studying the old, Greek manuscripts is the fact that they are not uniform. Consequently, thousands of man hours are wasted in futility, arguing over tiny, obscure details, many of which would disappear if only we possessed a coherent, uniform standard upon which to rely.

Perhaps it is incorrect for me to engage you in this fashion, I apologize if it appears offensive.

To answer your question, above, yes.
Let's review, and see if we can reconcile the distinctions between A and B:

Here are your two statements:

Quote:

A. The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises.

B. Validity means something very specific in logic: that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

They arose in the context of explaining that logic does not depend on truth. In particular, as noted in A, above, validity of an argument has no correlation with veracity of the premises.

That assertion, is, to my way of thinking, counter-intuitive.

However, I am not arguing against your position, or, perhaps I am, but not overtly. What I am attempting to argue, is that there is a contradiction between your explanation of validity using "A", compared with use of "B".

Judging from your response, I gather that I have thus far been relatively unsuccessful in persuading you that the two sentences, A, and B, are dissimilar, logically.

Perhaps, as J-D has cautioned, the supposed logical dissimilarity is apparent only to me, in view of my possessing such an embryonic understanding of logic.

In view of your question above, I will try one last time to explain what I perceive as two sentences which are contradictory.

A: Whether the premise(s) is (are) TRUE, or FALSE, has no effect on establishing validity. Validity, according to "A", is an independent variable, unrelated to the degree of truthfulness of the premises.

B: However, if the premise(s) is/are TRUE, then the conclusion must be true. If the conclusion must be true, what does that indicate about the validity? Can the "conclusion" be true, while the "validity" is false?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyramidHead

That's not what sentence B says. Let K mean "the argument is valid." Let C mean "Conclusion."

So, it is now clear, that the error is mine. I mistakenly thought that "conclusion" and "validity" were synonymous, but clearly they are not.

Apparently, in logic, it is possible to have a false conclusion, but a valid result, with, or without truthful premises.

I may not have yet grasped the essential features of Logic, but, for sure, after reading this thread, I now understand what the song writers meant:

Quote:

You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave....

avi

aa5874 · 07-31-2011, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

..So, it is now clear, that the error is mine. I mistakenly thought that "conclusion" and "validity" were synonymous, but clearly they are not.

Apparently, in logic, it is possible to have a false conclusion, but a valid result, with, or without truthful premises.

It is IMPERATIVE that you understand what "validity" means with respect to "an argument".

The following are examples of INVALID arguments.

Invalid Argument 1. Even though the Gospels are historically Unreliable Jesus was baptized by John because it appeared to be embarrassing is NOT a valid argument. Fiction stories and Myth fables may contain embarrassing event.

Invalid Argument 2. Even though the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE they contain Multiple Attestation of an historical Jesus is NOT a valid argument. MULTIPLE versions of Myth fables and Fiction stories may contain the same or similar stories MULTIPLE times.

Invalid Argument 3: Even though the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE the history of an historical Jesus can be gleaned from the Unreliable Gospels WITHOUT any corroboration from credible external sources is NOT a valid argument.

Unreliable sources NEED corroboration.

The argument for an historical Jesus is INVALID and cannot be maintained.

The following are examples of Valid arguments.

Valid Argument 1: The Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE. Myth fables are historically UNRELIABLE sources. Christians of antiquity Believed in MULTIPLE Myth fables. In MULTIPLE Versions of the Jesus stories in the NT, and MULTIPLE versions of the CODICES of antiquity Jesus was described as MYTH.

Valid Argument 2: If the Jesus stories were MYTH fables then we would NOT expect to find any credible historical sources of antiquity for Jesus of the NT and that is EXACTLY the position.

The argument that Jesus was a MYTH character or most likely a MYTH character is VALID.

andrewcriddle · 07-31-2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is IMPERATIVE that you understand what "validity" means with respect to "an argument".

.................................................. .......................

The following are examples of Valid arguments.

Valid Argument 1: The Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE. Myth fables are historically UNRELIABLE sources. Christians of antiquity Believed in MULTIPLE Myth fables. In MULTIPLE Versions of the Jesus stories in the NT, and MULTIPLE versions of the CODICES of antiquity Jesus was described as MYTH.

Valid Argument 2: If the Jesus stories were MYTH fables then we would NOT expect to find any credible historical sources of antiquity for Jesus of the NT and that is EXACTLY the position.

The argument that Jesus was a MYTH character or most likely a MYTH character is VALID.

The arguments above seem to be examples of the invalid argument

Premise 1: If A then B
Premise 2: B is true
Conclusion: A is true.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-31-2011, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is IMPERATIVE that you understand what "validity" means with respect to "an argument".

.................................................. .......................

The following are examples of Valid arguments.

Valid Argument 1: The Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE. Myth fables are historically UNRELIABLE sources. Christians of antiquity Believed in MULTIPLE Myth fables. In MULTIPLE Versions of the Jesus stories in the NT, and MULTIPLE versions of the CODICES of antiquity Jesus was described as MYTH.

Valid Argument 2: If the Jesus stories were MYTH fables then we would NOT expect to find any credible historical sources of antiquity for Jesus of the NT and that is EXACTLY the position.

The argument that Jesus was a MYTH character or most likely a MYTH character is VALID.

The arguments above seem to be examples of the invalid argument

Premise 1: If A then B
Premise 2: B is true
Conclusion: A is true.

Andrew Criddle

You DON'T seem to understand Logics.

I wrote that the ARGUMENT that Jesus was MYTH is VALID.

I am DEALING with VALIDITY or the Logical STRUCTURE of arguments.

The Logical STRUCTURE of the argument for the Historical Jesus is INVALID.

Please get familiar with basic Logics.

"The validity of an argument has to do only with the logical structure of the argument, and not with the truth of any of the premises".

Let us go through the Logical STRUCTURE of the argument for an Historical Jesus again to EXPOSE its INVALIDITY.

1 .Scholars themselves have ADMITTED that the Gospels are UNRELIABLE sources.

2. Scholars themselves have ADMITTED the SOURCES for the Gospels are UNRELIABLE.

3. Scholars ADMIT they use the Gospels as PRIMARY sources for HJ.

This is Bart Ehrman, a Scholar and Professional Historian in a debate with William Craig.

Quote:

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels.

These are not historically reliable accounts.......

Once the Jesus stories themselves are UNRELIABLE and the very SOURCES to corroborate the Jesus stories are ALSO UNRELIABLE then the Logical Structure for the HJ argument is INVALID.

Invalid Arguments may be typified in court cases.

If the Police has charged a man with a Crime and the Police report itself is found to be UNRELIABLE and found that the Police used UNRELIABLE sources to make their report then their argument for the Charge will be deemed INVALID and the case be THROWN out.

Or even worse, if during the trial the Police themselves ADMIT their report is UNRELIABLE and ADMIT the Sources for their report is UNRELIABLE then the Case will be QUASHED and the very Police may be charged with some crime.

Of course the man may have committed the very crime but the Court FIRST needed a VALID argument for the Charge.

Please get FAMILIAR with Logics and the meaning of "Validity".

You will find that the HJ argument is INVALID.

The Jesus stories are ADMITTED to be Historically Unreliable and the Sources to corroborate the Jesus stories are ALSO ADMITTED to be UNRELIABLE by the very Scholars who use the Jesus stories as their PRIMARY source for the Historical Jesus.

Sheshbazzar · 07-31-2011, 08:07 AM

I'm one a'hearin ya aa.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2011, 08:07 AM	#460
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I'm one a'hearin ya aa.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.