What is "a reasohable doubt?" (for Pete and everyone)

[Metacrock]

History is a science but it's a social science,* It can't be a "hard science" because we can never observe the experiment we can only try and piece together what happened from clues left in writing. Then of course that means we have to judge the history of the writing. History is probability. Although a strange kind of probability to which we cannot put numbers.

So history is really about likelihood and thus the question before us is "when does it become reasonable to doubt?" It's not reasonable to doubt e everything, very likely things are not reasonably doubted. Just as there has to be a warrant for belief, there must be a warrant for doubt. Warrants to be valid must be logically construed and if the contradict known facts there must be a rational explanation as to how the contradiction does not invalidate known facts.

So we need warrants for warrants, To avoid an infinite regression of warrant I suggest reading Plantinga and Stephen Toolman on Warrant. So a reasonable doubt is a warranted doubt. That means there's a logically valid and/or empirically verifiable reason for doubting. The danger will be confusing higher level beliefs and ideological biases with a warrant. Warrant can't be ideological biases, nor can it be higher beliefs.

What I mean by that is judging a historical event unlikely because its occurrences casts doubt upon some ideal we hold or a metaphysical assumption, Even if said assumption or belief are worthy and defensible they can't always be a warrant for said event (not unless there's a direct link).

Now I don't for a moment think I've summed it all up. My concept is that this will get us started on a good discussion


*I am a social science guy so I don't think that makes it any less scientific. Social science is harder than physical science because there many more variables and many we can never get at so to speak--such as understanding the past.

[Peter Kirby]

That means there's a logically valid and/or empirically verifiable reason for doubting.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

Might want to rethink this phrase, "logically valid." Perhaps to replace it with "logically sound."

As to "empirically verifiable," there's this:

1. There are some stories about people who do not have real existence.

Here we might ask about the story of Iron Man, for example. Iron Man's story takes place in the contemporary United States (and on Earth) and is not the kind of story that suggests it could happen in obscurity. The very wealthy Tony Stark and his Stark Industries, for example, do not appear where they would be expected to appear by their self-nature, such as in magazines and newspapers dedicated to tracking large companies and wealthy people. Nor does the man in the suit. So we can apparently say that there is no Iron Man in the present day, based on this empirical verification.

Then we can see how this empirically verified premise (1) above leads to reasonable doubt about stories about people who existed in general, unless there is some countervailing positive reason for believing in the stories about a person or some reason for believing in the existence of a person that isn't based on stories.

The very fact that a person is known only from stories means that there is a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of this person unless (a) the stories can be shown to have some particular qualities that establish their credibility or (b) some reason other than just stories can be presented for believing in the existence of a person.

In the absence of any relevant archaeological evidence, (b) seems to be out of the question. The result is that there is reasonable doubt regarding the existence of a person, such as but not limited to Jesus of Nazareth, unless the stories about him can be shown to have some particular qualities that establish their credibility.

Not that this is to say that such reasonable doubt is impossible to overcome, as that is a higher standard that is not required in order to have a reasonable doubt. It simply remains to be seen that it is actually overcome somehow.

That stories should have some particular qualities that establish their credibility, before their contents are accepted as true beyond a reasonable doubt, should be obvious to anyone (but I guess that hasn't stopped some very naughty, lazy historians from asserting otherwise). The alternative is actually accepting all stories as true beyond a reasonable doubt before examining the credibility of those stories, which is absurd.

[MrMacSon]

History is a science, but it's a social science ...

That is essentially a category error: History may involve scientific methods, especially those of hard science, such as investigation of archaeological findings, but it is hardly a social science in the modern, present-tense sense of that opening statement.


The rest of that OP is somewhat negative eg. -

History is probability. Although a strange kind of probability to which we cannot put numbers.

or

the question before us is "when does it become reasonable to doubt?"

Good history (ie. good historical methodology) is nuanced, contextual, and realistic.


.

[Peter Kirby]

Good history (ie. historical methodology) is nuanced, contextual, and nuanced.

"You said 'nuanced' twice."

"I like nuance."

(Credit: Blazing Saddles.)

I kid, I kid.

[MrMacSon]

Good history (ie. historical methodology) is nuanced, contextual, and nuanced.

"You said 'nuanced' twice."

"I like nuance."

I dunno how I did that, as I had a good third word, and have forgotten it, so 'realistic' was a ring-in

[Metacrock]

That means there's a logically valid and/or empirically verifiable reason for doubting.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

Might want to rethink this phrase, "logically valid." Perhaps to replace it with "logically sound."

No, I know what the term means, invalid arguments are false just as unsound arguments are false. Being false they would warrant doubt about the larger argument that they support. I am talking about reasons for doubting. I probably should have included sound.

As to "empirically verifiable," there's this:

1. There are some stories about people who do not have real existence.

Here we might ask about the story of Iron Man, for example. Iron Man's story takes place in the contemporary United States (and on Earth) and is not the kind of story that suggests it could happen in obscurity. The very wealthy Tony Stark and his Stark Industries, for example, do not appear where they would be expected to appear by their self-nature, such as in magazines and newspapers dedicated to tracking large companies and wealthy people. Nor does the man in the suit. So we can apparently say that there is no Iron Man in the present day, based on this empirical verification.

what does that have to do with saying that reasonable doubt requires reasons for doubting?

Then we can see how this empirically verified premise (1) above leads to reasonable doubt about stories about people who existed in general, unless there is some countervailing positive reason for believing in the stories about a person or some reason for believing in the existence of a person that isn't based on stories.

No I don't see. How does Iron man being fictional mean it's reasonable3 to doubt people not supposed to be fictional?

The very fact that a person is known only from stories means that there is a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of this person unless (a) the stories can be shown to have some particular qualities that establish their credibility or (b) some reason other than just stories can be presented for believing in the existence of a person.

This must be the mythicist fad. I saw others using the "story" attack, who started that/ THIS IS INDICATIVE OF MYTHIOSCISTS. The invention of your standards not used by people in the field. who says "stories" are some kind of fictional genre? For that matter who says the Gospels use stories? If you define story for me does that definition have to do with being fictional, sounds like begging the question.

My brother died an old childhood friend said "Let's tell Ray stories"(Ray was his name). Those were not fictional, We told stories but they happened,

In the absence of any relevant archaeological evidence, (b) seems to be out of the question. The result is that there is reasonable doubt regarding the existence of a person, such as but not limited to Jesus of Nazareth, unless the stories about him can be shown to have some particular qualities that establish their credibility.

There is an abundance of archeological evidence for historicity of Jesus. Not only in the Foucaultian sense but also in the ordinary sense..

Not that this is to say that such reasonable doubt is impossible to overcome, as that is a higher standard that is not required in order to have a reasonable doubt. It simply remains to be seen that it is actually overcome somehow.

That stories should have some particular qualities that establish their credibility, before their contents are accepted as true beyond a reasonable doubt, should be obvious to anyone (but I guess that hasn't stopped some very naughty, lazy historians from asserting otherwise). The alternative is actually accepting all stories as true beyond a reasonable doubt before examining the credibility of those stories, which is absurd.

[/quote]

you did a bait and switch. You have gone from discussing reasons for doubt t to hermeneutic of suspicion. No reason to start with the assumption that he did not exist. Why do that? what makes that reasonable it's not warranted.

[Metacrock]

History is a science, but it's a social science ...

That is essentially a category error: History may involve scientific methods, especially those of hard science, such as investigation of archaeological findings, but it is hardly a social science in the modern, present-tense sense of that opening statement.

Yes it is. a list of SS studied at Harvard: "The social sciences engages broadly with the study of human society and social relationships. At Harvard, the Division of Social Science embraces a number of diverse and highly interdisciplinary fields including"

The social sciences engages broadly with the study of human society and social relationships. At Harvard, the Division of Social Science embraces a number of diverse and highly interdisciplinary fields including:

http://concentrations.fas.harvard.edu/p ... al-science


Department Websites Concentration Websites
African and African-American Studies African and African-American Studies
Anthropology (Social Anthropology and Archaeology) Anthropology (Social Anthropology and Archaeology)
East Asian Studies* East Asian Studies*
Economics Economics
Government Government
History History
History and Science History and Science
Psychology* Psychology*
Social Studies Social Studies
Sociology

The rest of that OP is somewhat negative eg. -

History is probability. Although a strange kind of probability to which we cannot put numbers.

or

the question before us is "when does it become reasonable to doubt?"

Good history (ie. good historical methodology) is nuanced, contextual, and realistic.

I assume that by "good history" you mean good historiography?what do you mean by that? in what sense? how exactly does that contradict history being probabilistic?

[MrMacSon]

The rest of that OP is somewhat negative eg. -

History is probability. Although a strange kind of probability to which we cannot put numbers.1

or

the question before us is "when does it become reasonable to doubt?"

Good history (ie. good historical methodology) is nuanced, contextual, and realistic.

I assume that by "good history" you mean good historiography? what do you mean by that? in what sense? how exactly does that contradict history being probabilistic?1

Historiography is

• * the writing of history; or
  
  * the study of the writing of history and of written histories.

That is slightly different to 'The Historical Method'.


1If history is 'probabilistic', then surely one can attribute or put numbers to such probables?

.

[Peter Kirby]

what does that have to do with saying that reasonable doubt requires reasons for doubting?

No I don't see.

who says "stories" are some kind of fictional genre?

Those were not fictional, We told stories but they happened,

you did a bait and switch. You have gone from discussing reasons for doubt t to hermeneutic of suspicion. No reason to start with the assumption that he did not exist. Why do that? what makes that reasonable it's not warranted.

1 - I did not start with an assumption that Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) did not exist.

2 - I did not attempt to argue that Jesus did not exist, in this thread.

3 - I did not attempt to argue that all stories are fictional.

4 - I did not define stories as being fictional.

5 - I did discuss the matter of there being reasonable doubt on this question (the historicity of Jesus).

6 - I did say that, to overcome reasonable doubt, some particular qualities of these stories should be discussed that provide them with credibility, as otherwise (if we are not examining the qualities that might suggest credibility) we'd be giving carte blanche to believe anything before examining the credibility of the story.

7 - As I have said, I have not suggested an argument that reasonable doubt is impossible to overcome, as that is a completely different question (requiring a much higher standard); I merely said that there is currently reasonable doubt.

8 - I recognize that there may be a way, in fact, to overcome that reasonable doubt, by establishing the credibility of the stories that are the only available historical basis for believing in the historicity of Jesus.

9 - All of this could have been gathered from the original post. (You get an "F" for reading comprehension.)

10 - There is no "bait and switch." My essay suggested that there is reasonable doubt about this question, and it did so primarily through the evaluation of positive arguments for the historicity of Jesus. I didn't promise you an argument establishing the non-existence of Jesus. You can throw around the theological phrase "hermeneutic of suspicion," but outside the hallowed halls of theology studies the phrase is "common sense" -- if you take a story for truth without considering its reliability first, that is not a "truth" that is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

11 -- If you still don't get it, I'm not going to bend over backwards. Try reading slowly, carefully, and charitably. ("Charitable reading" is an idiom, but it is also a good one; if there are two ways to take something, and one of them is crazy-sounding, opt for the other.)

[Metacrock]

what does that have to do with saying that reasonable doubt requires reasons for doubting?

No I don't see.

who says "stories" are some kind of fictional genre?

Those were not fictional, We told stories but they happened,

you did a bait and switch. You have gone from discussing reasons for doubt t to hermeneutic of suspicion. No reason to start with the assumption that he did not exist. Why do that? what makes that reasonable it's not warranted.

1 - I did not start with an assumption that Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) did not exist.

2 - I did not attempt to argue that Jesus did not exist, in this thread.

3 - I did not attempt to argue that all stories are fictional.

4 - I did not define stories as being fictional.

That's the way your statements seemed to me. I'm not going to argue about your meaning, If you say that's not what you meant great. Perhaps you might say what you did mean.

5 - I did discuss the matter of there being reasonable doubt on this question (the historicity of Jesus).

that's the discussion we are both kind of getting ready for. I think reasonable doubt is where you find it. I mean like belief doubt is personal. Putting aside doubting as a feeling, which I don't necessarily write off as "stupid" or anything derogatory of the doubter, If I'm going to be an existentialist then I have to allow Sartiean good faith to work both ways.

so do I accept that one might justifiably have warrant for doubt of Jesus historicity. what's a warrant for you may not be taken as one by me.

6 - I did say that, to overcome reasonable doubt, some particular qualities of these stories should be discussed that provide them with credibility, as otherwise (if we are not examining the qualities that might suggest credibility) we'd be giving carte blanche to believe anything before examining the credibility of the story.

I got that. I agree that is a good point I'm not dismissing it, but it does seem to start the process with the doubt. why not take them on face value until you have a warrant for doubting them?

7 - As I have said, I have not suggested an argument that reasonable doubt is impossible to overcome, as that is a completely different question (requiring a much higher standard); I merely said that there is currently reasonable doubt.

yes I got that, but what I meant was you don't seem to start with the need to have a reason for doubting, you start the process of warrant with the believer's overcoming the doubt, or so it seems. I think it's just as valid to take that part of the narrative ( Jesus existed) at face value. The community that produced the document says he existed, why should I doubt that?

8 - I recognize that there may be a way, in fact, to overcome that reasonable doubt, by establishing the credibility of the stories that are the only available historical basis for believing in the historicity of Jesus.

we should also talk about prima facie burden and presumption. Historicity should be assumed and not doubted until doubt is warranted. I am talking about in debate not what you feel or think privately.

9 - All of this could have been gathered from the original post. (You get an "F" for reading comprehension.)

Text belongs to the reader

you get an F for poor expression. I also have doubts about your penmanship

10 - There is no "bait and switch." My essay suggested that there is reasonable doubt about this question, and it did so primarily through the evaluation of positive arguments for the historicity of Jesus.

That was wrong phrase. I should have said shift in argument.

I didn't promise you an argument establishing the non-existence of Jesus. You can throw around the theological phrase "hermeneutic of suspicion," but outside the hallowed halls of theology studies the phrase is "common sense" -- if you take a story for truth without considering its reliability first, that is not a "truth" that is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually Hermeneutics of suspicion, while it could be and is used in theology, I learned in the secular program in history of ideas where did my Ph.D. work, It's a Post modern phrase and comes out of Heideggier

11 -- If you still don't get it, I'm not going to bend over backwards. Try reading slowly, carefully, and charitably. ("Charitable reading" is an idiom, but it is also a good one; if there are two ways to take something, and one of them is crazy-sounding, opt for the other.)

If you believed that you would dismiss mythicism. they have no positive reason for doubting historicity. It's all "we don't this we don't have that." where's the warrant for reasonable doubt?

In the discussion on reasonable doubt do you agree that it requires warrant?