| quote: | ||
Originally posted by The Fallen Phoenix
That's the same stance I'm taking, Dude. In the absence of any defensible arguments that have actually been spelled out yet, I'm currently defaulting to the typical postulates that have stood for a fair amount of time: 1. Yeshua/Jesus, Joseph, Mary, etc. were common given names of the time, so finding a tomb with all of those names does not, by itself, prove anything. 2. As far as I know (and this is admittedly little since I am not an expert in biblical history beyond what I've studied in critical reading Theology classes in high school), Jesus was the son of a rather poor carpenter, and probably didn't have all that much money himself. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus and his family lacked the income to pay for such a tomb. 3. DNA testing can, at best, prove all the people in the tomb are related. It cannot confirm the identity of someone who existed over two thousand years ago unless there is another source to compare it to (whether that is another DNA source from that time, or from a suspected decedent, etc.). I fail to see how DNA testing--which shouldn't be all that accurate to begin with since you're using some really dated materials here--can confirm anything regarding this individual's identity. Now, it might be possible to date the bodies around the time that Jesus apparently lived, and it might also be possible to find evidence that the body supposedly belonging to Jesus died via crucifixion, and if so, that improves the credibility of the argument a great deal. It still isn't a final word, however, since that could still be chalked up to coincidence; I'm not saying that's the position I would necessarily take, obviously I haven't seen the evidence, but that is still a possibility. 4. It's certainly fair to assume that, while the Gospels themselves (which any serious Biblical scholar knows aren't meant to be the literal truths) were written several decades after Jesus' apparent death and resurrection, there is some evidence that there were older transcripts around detailing Jesus' teaching (and, one might assume, his life and death), and there were certainly eye-witnesses who at least lived in the two or three decades following his death. Presuming the belief surrounding resurrection emerged that quickly, and I'm inclined to think that it did, it would be hard to fool everyone, and based on the evolution of Christianity in the first few centuries immediately following Jesus' death, I don't think it was a belief that was intended to be a total sham just to attract more followers. Again, none of this is certain, but I'd like to think that if people were seriously looking to discredit belief of the Resurrection, it would have been done in the early years of Christianity, and since it hasn't been done up until now (and there has been no evidence of it having been done until now), it is at least safe to assume--at the very least--that it will prove improbable (though not necessarily impossible) to do so. Again, these are just some of my initial rational reactions to what I've heard thus far, and I in no way am presuming this is the last word, nor that--if there is indeed a last word--I have it. I am probably the last person to have a last word because, quite frankly, I'm not educated enough in archeology, biology, or biblical studies to have a compelling opinion on this subject matter. As such, I am going to be far more inclined to--outside of the brief reasonings outlined above--also default to my religious beliefs, and--irrational though they might seem--I'm confident enough in them that I do not believe that even something as potentially compelling as this will shake them. ...damn it, should have been working on my Parmenides descriptive essay for my Philosophy class tomorrow morning. Oh well; I'll have to finish that after dance class, I suppose... P.S. Ennio Morricone is indeed the man. |
| quote: |
| CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT Based on the book The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments: 1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts 2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). 4. Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. 4. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. 5. Quantify, wherever possible. 6. If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. 7. "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler. 8. Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? Additional issues are: 1. Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects. 2. Check for confounding factors - separate the variables. Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric: 1. Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. 2. Argument from "authority". 3. Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). 4. Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). 5. Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). 6. Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased). 7. Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). 8. Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes). 9. Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!) 10. Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). 11. Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down. 12. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. 13. Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?). 14. Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). 15. Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"). 16. Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). 17. Confusion of correlation and causation. 18. Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.. 19. Suppressed evidence or half-truths. 20. Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" |