Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-25-2013, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

History is about possibilities and their boundaries and/or restrictions. The problem with this diagram is the claim that if we have no evidence THEN it is not historical. The lack of evidence does not necessarily imply non historicity.(eg: the evidence may have been destroyed, and/or it may be discovered or found tomorrow). Of course, lack of evidence also may imply non historicity, but this equivalence is not guaranteed (see examples provided, and their antitheses)....

Lack of evidence of history is fundamental to an argument for no history--no reality.

Lack of evidence plays its part in an argument for positive, zero and negative historicity for specific events and people, but the argument necessarily entails some sort of complex equation.

Quote:

Are you not arguing that there was NO Jesus cult until the 4th century because of a lack of evidence or by not accepting the evidence?

So already you admit that evidence may be evaluated by different parties in an entirely different manner. This essentially implies that while lack of evidence of history is fundamental to an argument, the assessment of that evidence (i.e. to be accepted as positive historicity) is also fundamental.

Quote:

One cannot reconstruct the past by speculating and hoping that unknown evidence will magically appear from nowhere tomorrow that will ONLY corroborate one's personal imagination.

And yet it is a known fact of history that the discovery of a previously unknown artefact can essentially totally reverse centuries of previously held historical opinion.

Quote:

History is a reconstruction of the past using the present available data.

Coupled with an assessment (i.e WEIGHTING) of that data.

Quote:

When new data is found the more we may be able to get a better 'picture' of the past.

What if the new data is a forgery?

Quote:

At the present moment, the data we have now, supports the argument that there was NO real historical Jesus.

Yes I agree with this, because you and I weigh the available data in a similar manner. However there are other researchers who for example allocate positive historicity to the New Testament as a manuscript from the 1st century describing a myth that arose in an historical sense at that time.

Quote:

In other words, the Historical Jesus is a Myth

At the moment based on my investigation, I prefer the conclusion that the HJ is a pious forgery.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 08-25-2013, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Consider the following table. It features four different possibilities that help to show the relation between historicity and reality.

[t2="bc=yes;p=4;bg=silver;bdr=2,solid,#000000"]{c:bdr=1,solid,#000000}1.
|
{c:bg=#b0ffb0;bdr=1,solid,#000000}positive evidence
|
{c:bg=#ffff80;bdr=1,solid,#000000}historical
|
{c:rs=2;bg=#fff0e8;bdr=1,solid,#000000}real
||
{c:bdr=1,solid,#000000}2.
|
{c:rs=2;bg=#f0ffff;bdr=1,solid,#000000}lack of evidence
|
{c:rs=3;bg=#ff80ff;bdr=1,solid,#000000}not
historical
||
{c:bdr=1,solid,#000000}3.
|
{c:rs=2;bg=#f0e8ff;bdr=1,solid,#000000}not real
||
{c:bdr=1,solid,#000000}4.
|
{c:bg=#ff4060;bdr=1,solid,#000000}negative evidence[/t2]

Assessment of evidence is a critical factor not dealt with as far as I can see in the above draft. Some investigators will allocate different weighting and classification of positive, null and negative evidence to different events and historical possibilities.

Some events have many contributory components, some of which may be positive, some null, and some negative (eg: forgeries) so we are left with a complex system of probabilities/possibilities that cannot be modelled in such a simplistic manner as this table.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Grog · 08-25-2013, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

I'd say History is about possibilities probabilities
.

Well of course I'd have to agree with this, seeing that probability theory is a mathematical system of dealing with various possibilities.

In fact I'd go so far to argue that - in the long run (i.e. using probability equations [with intermediate steps] in order to model historical possibilities) - it may be that the concept of negative probabilities is required. This concept of negative probability has been raised and examined by physicists. A good article is here:

Negative Probabilities

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirac

Negative energies and probabilities should not be considered as nonsense.
They are well-defined concepts mathematically, like a negative of money.

..... the clearest writing about negative probabilities that I’ve found is by Feynman.
He emphasizes that even if the final answer of a calculation must be positive,
negative numbers are often allowed to appear in intermediate steps…...
and that this can happen with probabilities.

I have mentioned this in order to deal with positive and negative "historicity" where, for example, positive historicity may be attributed to a genuine archaeological relic while a "negative historicity" may be attributed to a forged and utterly inauthentic relic.

People may not necessarily agree with this, but the method has the advantage of reserving a special treatment for forgeries, which cannot be allocated positive historicity and which, if zero historicity is allocated, the accounting of forgery is lost to the process.

It is my considered opinion that the full story of Jesus and Christian origins cannot be described without the plain and simple existence of many many forgeries.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

I would think probability would be an absolute value. There is either a probability that something occurred or no probability (or approaching no probability). I'll have to think about this more.

Grog · 08-25-2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The project is similar to reconstructions of the face of Jesus. Of course, we have no idea and no way of know what the real face of Jesus looked like. But we still attempt sketches.

WHAT??!! The article you link, Grog, says this: "Two key factors could not be determined from the skull—Jesus's hair and coloration. To fill in these parts of the picture, Neave's team turned to drawings found at various archeological sites, dated to the first century. Drawn before the Bible was compiled, they held crucial clues that enabled the researchers to determine that Jesus had dark rather than light-colored eyes. They also pointed out that in keeping with Jewish tradition, he was bearded as well."

Are these drawings purporting to represent JESUS or are they merely drawings of some people from the first century CE? I had not heard that graphic representations identifiable as portraits of Jesus existed from such an early date.

They are drawing of what a typical person of what would have been Jesus' general persuasion might possibly have looked like. From that they extrapolate, "the face of Jesus."

I see this venture as similar to attempts to sketch a biography of Jesus.

ficino · 08-26-2013, 04:29 AM

I thought Spin and I added two posts to this thread, but now they are not here.

??

aa5874 · 08-26-2013, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I would think probability would be an absolute value. There is either a probability that something occurred or no probability (or approaching no probability). I'll have to think about this more.

'Probability' is NOT an absolute value.

The probability that something occurred also inherently implies that there is a probability that it did not.

For example, even if there is a 90% probability that it will rain such a probability does not in any way suggest that it must rain.

Grog · 08-26-2013, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I would think probability would be an absolute value. There is either a probability that something occurred or no probability (or approaching no probability). I'll have to think about this more.

'Probability' is NOT an absolute value.

The probability that something occurred also inherently implies that there is a probability that it did not.

For example, even if there is a 90% probability that it will rain such a probability does not in any way suggest that it must rain.

Ok, sure, but probability is stated in positive terms. there isn't a -10% probability of no rain. You could state as a 10% chance of clear skies.

Iskander · 08-26-2013, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I would think probability would be an absolute value. There is either a probability that something occurred or no probability (or approaching no probability). I'll have to think about this more.

'Probability' is NOT an absolute value.

The probability that something occurred also inherently implies that there is a probability that it did not.

For example, even if there is a 90% probability that it will rain such a probability does not in any way suggest that it must rain.

That probability is an “absolute value” means only that the probability of an event is always positive.

“Negative probabilities” is a very simple and a very relevant contribution to this thread.

Negative probability, Richard Feynman
http://cds.cern.ch/record/154856/fil....pdf?version=1

aa5874 · 08-26-2013, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I would think probability would be an absolute value. There is either a probability that something occurred or no probability (or approaching no probability). I'll have to think about this more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

'Probability' is NOT an absolute value.

The probability that something occurred also inherently implies that there is a probability that it did not.

For example, even if there is a 90% probability that it will rain such a probability does not in any way suggest that it must rain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Ok, sure, but probability is stated in positive terms. there isn't a -10% probability of no rain. You could state as a 10% chance of clear skies.

You appear somewhat confused about probability and its application.

There is no such thing as absolute probability and it is of no real difference between- "10% probability of no rain and 10% chance of clear skies".

Grog · 08-26-2013, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I would think probability would be an absolute value. There is either a probability that something occurred or no probability (or approaching no probability). I'll have to think about this more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Ok, sure, but probability is stated in positive terms. there isn't a -10% probability of no rain. You could state as a 10% chance of clear skies.

You appear somewhat confused about probability and its application.

There is no such thing as absolute probability and it is of no real difference between- "10% probability of no rain and 10% chance of clear skies".

No, aa, you are confused. Absolute value means distance from 0. Absolute value is expressed in positive terms as is probability. There isn't, from what I can tell, a negative probability of an event occurring. There is either some probability of something occurring (or having had occurred) or there is 0 probability. There is no negative probability. I said nothing about an "absolute probability."

Nevermind. I just saw a snippet of that Miley Cyrus performance and nothing really matters anymore...

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

08-26-2013, 04:29 AM	#35
ficino Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York Posts: 252	I thought Spin and I added two posts to this thread, but now they are not here. ??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.