Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-04-2011, 11:53 PM

I disagree Toto. This extract in a slightly different form appears in the WIKI article for Historical method

Quote:

Synthesis: historical reasoning

Once individual pieces of information have been assessed in context, hypotheses can be formed and established by historical reasoning.

Argument to the best explanation

C. Behan McCullagh lays down seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation:[11]

1.The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement
'the hypothesis',
and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

2.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements.

3.The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other.

4.The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.

5.The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.

6.It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

7.It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

It is clear that the argument of best explanation includes the formation of hypotheses (in the plural). The theory as I see it brings all the separate MULTIPLE hypotheses together with an examination of the observable data.

Quote:

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

NO YOU MAY NOT.

In the above quote, hypothesis is used in the sense of a theory or a model.

I strongly disagree.

The WIKI article uses the term hypothesis, not the word theory or thr word model. Why do you think that is? I think it is because the theory uses a series of BEST hypotheses (as outlined above) and applies them to a series of the evidence items.

J-D · 11-05-2011, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

Why would we? What's wrong with the term 'hypothesis'? Why would we substitute another term for it?

mountainman · 11-05-2011, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

Why would we? What's wrong with the term 'hypothesis'? Why would we substitute another term for it?

We dont need to.
I see them as equivalent terms.

Toto appears to be disagreeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

now you are confusing "hypotheses" with postulates.

Doug Shaver · 11-05-2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Can you supply just one postulate?

Do you for example postulate that "Paul" was historical?

Please note that when I say postulate, I mean assumption. If you mean something else, then I don't know what you're asking.

No, I do not postulate Paul's historicity. I infer it. By definition, an assumption is not an inference.

I do not postulate specifics. I postulate generalities.

Here is one example of my postulates: Human nature has not changed during recorded history.

J-D · 11-05-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

Why would we? What's wrong with the term 'hypothesis'? Why would we substitute another term for it?

We dont need to.
I see them as equivalent terms.

In the dictionary I find definitions for different uses of 'hypothesis'. One is equivalent to 'postulate'; one is not. It appears to me that McCullagh is using 'hypothesis' in a sense which is not equivalent to 'postulate'.

mountainman · 11-06-2011, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Can you supply just one postulate?

Do you for example postulate that "Paul" was historical?

Please note that when I say postulate, I mean assumption. If you mean something else, then I don't know what you're asking.

That's fine.

Quote:

No, I do not postulate Paul's historicity. I infer it. By definition, an assumption is not an inference.

By definition an inference is

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

.... the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true

What therefore is this premise and/or evidence that you either know or assume to be true, upon which your inference that Paul was an historical character is founded?

Quote:

I do not postulate specifics.

Do you not make postulates (i.e. assumptions) every single time that you examine any one item of hundreds of specific evidence items?

Quote:

I postulate generalities.

Here is one example of my postulates: Human nature has not changed during recorded history.

How many of these general postulates would you prepared to admit to? I am not asking for a list but a ball park count. 5, 20, 50, 100?

mountainman · 11-06-2011, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

Why would we? What's wrong with the term 'hypothesis'? Why would we substitute another term for it?

We dont need to.
I see them as equivalent terms.

In the dictionary I find definitions for different uses of 'hypothesis'. One is equivalent to 'postulate'; one is not. It appears to me that McCullagh is using 'hypothesis' in a sense which is not equivalent to 'postulate'.

Please provide your dictionary citation.

J-D · 11-06-2011, 09:48 PM

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypothesis

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postulate

mountainman · 11-06-2011, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypothesis

As follows:

Quote:

hypothesis (plural hypotheses)

1.(sciences) A tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation.
2.(general) An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation.
3.(grammar) The antecedent of a conditional statement.

Quote:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postulate

as follows"

Quote:

postulate (plural postulates)

1.Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument.
2.A fundamental element; a basic principle.
3.(logic) An axiom.
4.A requirement; a prerequisite.

Quote:

In the dictionary I find definitions for different uses of 'hypothesis'. One is equivalent to 'postulate'; one is not. It appears to me that McCullagh is using 'hypothesis' in a sense which is not equivalent to 'postulate'.

Hypothesis has 3 definitions above. We can exlude the grammar one. that leaves us with:

Quote:

1.(sciences) A tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation and/or experimentation.
2.(general) An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation.

Which of these appears to you as not reflected in McCullagh's use of the term in the citation above?

mountainman · 11-06-2011, 11:10 PM

Hey Toto,

Have you had a chance to reconsider this?

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

For the purposes of the OP, in the above quote from C. Behan McCullagh we may substitute the term "hypothesis" with the term "postulate".

NO YOU MAY NOT.

In the above quote, hypothesis is used in the sense of a theory or a model.

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

11-06-2011, 09:48 PM	#38
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypothesis http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/postulate

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.