Jeffrey Gibson

You didn't explain anything. You simply made an assertion.


Really?

Notably without providing any justification for this conclusion.

Quite so. But you do have to provide reasons for why the subsequent conclusions you arrive at after you assume what you assume, since it's unclear why they follow from the basic assumption. And the the question of whether or not the text is a forgery has no bearing on what the text itself asserts.

Is that the idea that worshipers of Serapis referred to Serapis as Christ what you originally claimed?

And in any case, what do you actually think is the truth here. Did they or didn't they refer to Serapis as Christ? And is this something that the text actually says whether it is a forgery or not??

As I noted before, I dispute your claim that the rule in argumentation is that one has the burden of proof only when one's claim has been disputed. What is your evidence -- and especially evidence from any expert in the art of argument -- that your claim is "authentic" and "true"? Note, I'm not asking you to prove your clam. I'm just asking what the evidence is that you think shows that the rule you've asserted is recognized by experts in argumentation and authors of books on good arguments as a legitimate rule.

Then there's the little matter of what I noted in posts 5439533 and 5439582 that you've not taken up.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

No, it says that some worshippers of Serapis are actually Christians while some who call themselves bishops of Christ are actually worshippers of Serapis. That these are different groups with some members that appear to belong to the other group in no way suggests that they are all actually a single group going by two different names.

This seems clearly connected to the initial complaint about how Egyptians are "wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor".

"There are those..." suggests only that some bishops do this. Again, this is entirely consist with the general complaint.

While that is not necessarily inconsistent with the evidence, it does appear to go beyond what the letter actually states. Some of those one might see participating in Christian rituals or publicly claiming to be Christians are actually worshippers of Serapis and vice versa. It is possible that some of these individuals believed that Serapis and Christ were identical or that differentiating them was irrelevant but that isn't actually indicated by the letter.

Given that these people are described as "wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumor", we are talking about folks who lack a solid grounding in any one faith.

spamandham

There are no consequences to failing to abide by the 'rule' other than the liklihood of failure to persuade. But often, an individual states something that is widely accepted, or that is not central to their point, and simply doesn't care enough about it to put the effort into supporting it.

If you don't care that such points might be summarily dismissed, then there is no effective consequence. A "rule" without consequence is not a rule at all.

A discussion is an exchange of ideas. No rules involving burdens of proof are necessary for that exchange to happen. I'd wager the vast majority of people having discussions in this world have never even heard of this "rule" regarding burdens of proof.

patcleaver

You should consider your underlying assumptions.

Are you assuming that the Historia Augusta is reliable?

Are you assuming that the Christians, that Hadrian is referring to, are followers of JON (Jesus of Nazareth)?

How many followers of JON do you think are in Alexandria in 135 CE?

Are you assuming that the pagans called followers of JON Christians at that time?

Are you assuming that Samaritans are not called Christians?

Are you assuming that worshipers of Serapis are not called Christians?

Are you assuming that Serapis was not called Christ?

Are you assuming that Emperor Hadrian would know who the followers of JON are?

Are you assuming that the Patriarch (proably a Roman Official who was the head religious leader of the Roman Empire) would worship with both the followers of Serapis and the followers of JON when he came to Alexandria?

You need to tell me what your assumptions are so I can understand your claims.

stonewall1012

Let me get this straight... you want me to accept that Hadrian could not have been speaking about christians based upons Starks questionable blantant assumptions about what Alexandria's christian population might have been. However, the entire field of paleology which examines, not hand writting, but various types of uses of short hand script and letter usage you contend is hardly more than "speculation". Forgive me if I find your "skepticism" to be blantant bias.

Here is a nice little site I found... I diagree mainly with the author so don't think he is "touting" my perspective; scroll down to the 100's and you will see him reference (Metzger, 39) That is Bruce Metzger, he is referencing the P52 papyrus. Please find me another scholar that disagrees with this assessment as P52 coming from the early 1st century. Then we can begin to intelligently "disagree" over the dating of this parchment.
The site: http://www.drury.edu/ess/values/chri...criptures.html

EarlDoherty

Without necessarily defending PatCleaver's specific claims here, or certain claims being made by others, I would say this statement needs nuancing, especially in a practical situation like a discussion board.

If I say "The Americans are winning in Iraq" a request for supporting evidence is of course reasonable. If the requester prefaces his request with the statement, "No, they are not" (or his tone, or the experience with him) implies that he is denying it, then we could say there is now a mutual responsibility. There is a burden of proof and a burden of the challenge.

If the dispute would be most simply and directly resolved by the challenger meeting his burden, that should be the most reasonable course to follow. If the challenger could say, "American casualties have doubled in the last 6 months while the number of insurgents and their activities have tripled" or "Areas controlled by Americans have shrunk to a few small enclaves," then that should be a pretty conclusive indication that the original statement is wrong.

If, OTOH, the request to the original speaker would require a lengthy explanation, involving supporting claims that would need further verifying or discussion (all of which, of course, would be useful to the discussion), it is quite permissible for the speaker to say to the challenger, do you have any knockdown argument that I'm wrong?

(This is particularly valid if the challenger comes across as saying or implying that, of course you're wrong and it's easy to show you how.)

Balancing the requirements between asserter and challenger, and who takes priority, is of course a little more difficult. Maybe it depends on who blinks first.

But if I answered, "The Americans are winning because the numbers of killed insurgents are going up," and the challenger came back and asked, "Who is your source for that?" Then I gave my source, and he came back and asked, "And how do you know that source is reliable?" then eventually we would get the impression that the "responsibility" was a little one-sided.

I agree that if the requester knows nothing about the subject and is only seeking clarification or back-up evidence to evaluate the assertion, then there's only one choice. But I find that on this board, this is not often the case.

(This, of course, is not to point any fingers, but simply to respond in principle to Amaleq's statement.)

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

According to you and your use of the "I am not obliged to answer if I don't find the request interesting/relevant" card, no he doesn't.

Jeffrey

stonewall1012

I would contend and did contend that both asserter and negator (to simplify the terms) should bear a reasonable "burden of proof". I can assert that the sun is NOT made of burning hydrogen and other gases but if I offer no counter proof that it is not this way but simply persist with the idea that I "simply remain unconvinced" that is pure ignorance and not an argument.

My point was NOT that the one postulating a claim is with out burden of proof but that it should be
A) a reasonable burden of proof given the speculative nature of history
B) not be the only one required to carry the burden of proof.

It is not good history to negate the assertion that Alexander died in Babylon and was buried in Alexandria (where ever that might be) and not be required to bear SOME burden of proof.

stonewall1012

I got to thinking about your response and had some clairifying points.
Logically speaking an assertion and a negation of an assertion are actually both assertions. Each bears the responsiblity of proof.

If I say "John killed Sue", a person can ask: How do you know John killed Sue? The burden of proof is upon the person making the assertion. Anyone can rip to shreads and destroy any evidence I propose that "John killed Sue". However that person has NOT proven that John did NOT kill Sue. He/she has only demonstrated that I have not proven that John killed Sue.

The moment someone asserts "John did not kill Sue" the burden of proof shifts to the one making the new assertion. Disproving an assertion does not automatically prove the negation of the assertion.

Politians are liars and cheats. You can rip this assertion to shreads and destroy the argument. However, you have not proven that: Politians are not liars and cheats, by disproving the assertion that politians are liars and cheats.

This fallacy of thinking is peravasive. Demonstration of insufficiency for proof of an assertion does NOT automatically prove the negation of the assertion.

We see this all the time... namely the OJ Simpson trial. Just because their "evidence" did not prove OJ was guilty of murder it does not follow that he is innocent.

I'm not sure if this fallacious thinking is due to the "trial" mentality where people think they learn logic or what. A negative assertion is still an assertion that should bear reasonable burden of proof.

EarlDoherty

An essential point. I might broaden it to say that those who demand--or continually demand further--demonstration of proof for an assertion, and (immediately or eventually) encounter the asserter's silence or limit, have not thereby disproven the assertion. The logical mistake made by the negater is that this is in fact the case, a mistake compounded by the negater's accompanying refusal as unnecessary to offer anything in the way of satisfying "the burden of the challenge/negation."

(Again, this is of course not to point fingers at anyone, but to carry through a discussion in principle.)

Earl Doherty