I have been talking about valid historical research methods from the start.
A laudable talk it has been. Nevertheless, my post answered a specific question which you had posed, and your question constrained potential response only in not being NT scholarship. Coincidentally, you had earlier discussed the very same domain here, approvingly, despite your overall emphasis on historical silos and their importance to your epistemology.
I am saying that biblical studies historians by and large do not follow the normative methods.
Could be. But you've shown no interest in the question I raised about whether optimal collective performance coincides with individuals performing optimally. It's not obvious that it does, there are famous counterexamples (Stein's Theorem, for instance). But so far, you have been content to complain that some professionals don't share your aspirations for their individual performance.
OK, message received and understood.
I have tried to point out repeatedly that evidence is evidence, proof of an event is proof of an event, whether we are talking about modern or ancient history or detective investigations.
I realize that as a suspected postmodernist extremist, I may appear to need instruction that tautologies are true. As it happens, I passed that course.
There is no sliding scale from clear cut black and white proof down to more or less something close ...
That'd be news to Laplace, Neil.
... for an ancient figure.
There's a "sliding scale" for all uncertain contingencies, always and anytime. If you don't want to use it for some questions, then that's your choice. It doesn't cease to exist because of how you choose, however.
I do not need "educated opinion holders" to tell me on their authority alone that there was a WW2.
I thought you were
an educated opinion holder. Fortunately, I didn't say that anybody needed anybody else's advice; I said what an identifiable group of opinion holders typically believe about WW II. Other groups do, too.
I also mentioned that this virtual unanimity had something to do with the evidence; I don't recall discussing the role of expert opinion, but yes, that is evidence (important evidence sometimes for judges and jurors, although probably not much needed by anybody for whether WW II happened).
Anyway, I am always happy to read what "we" do, don't do, need to do, cannot do, ... If only I knew who this "we" are, and who died to leave you as our spokesperson.