|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
 Posted - 12/08/2003 : 11:15:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Do you see a distinction between the following two question?
(1) The existence of the Loch Ness Monster is as likely as not.
(2) Reported sightings of the Loch Ness Monster can as likely as not be attributed to its existence.
Hmm. Well, one is just a claim with no basis, but the other says that if people have seen it, then there's a 50/50 chance it exists. But I disagree with both statements. Help me out here. What's the distinction between the two for you? |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2003 : 19:37:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
Help me out here. What's the distinction between the two for you?
Les, as I attempt to respond to your question, please make allowances for the following. While I've had the oppotunity to read some Mayr, E.O. Wilson, and others, I am far from fully conversant in areas such as zoology and conservation biology. For the sake of brevity, I may make a few terse claims below, but these should be assumed tentative and prefixed with "To the best of my knowledge, ...".
Question: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, is the existence of {X} as likely as not?
Let's call {X} Clawd - for Cryptozoologist's Large Animal Wet Dream.
The answer, of course, is: it depends.
Existential questions don't exist in a vacuum. They have an evidentiary context. Clawd is a member of a species and, as such, faces the same issues of habitat carrying capacity and population dynamics as does every other species.
Does Clawd have a large number of extant kin? If so, his ecological niche must be large enough and robust enough to support that population. How large? It depends, but in general it's larger for big animals than small, and larger for mammals that reptiles and amphibians. As we know by his name, Clawd's pretty big. If the extant population of his species is likewise big, we're probably talking about a fairly large habitat. But habitat is not something that simply contains a species. It is something with which a species interacts. The habitat contains information about the inhabitants.
Here the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. Why? Because we are speaking of the absence of reasonably expected input. Where are the signs of habitat impact? Where are the signes of predation? Where are the signs of infant mortality? Where is the occasional corpse washed up on the shore? Where is the road kill?
Put somewhat differently, we have actually changed the question. We are no longer asking about the existential possibility of Clawd, but of a species that persists without leaving a trace.
We might still save Clawd. Easiest would be to make him very small, thereby eliminating many of the habitat issues. And, in fact, new species are being discovered all the time. Unfortunately, a very small Clawd would invalidate the acronym and must therefore be rejected.
We could, of course, deposit Clawd in the ocean depths. The habitat is not only large enough to sustain an unknown species, but also uncharted enough to allow for the ecological interaction to go unnoticed. Depending on how Clawd is further defined, the possibility of a sea-going Clawd could, I suspect, easily approach 'as likely as not'. In fact, if we allow Clawd to have tentacles and a beak, the possibility is even greater.
Conversely, we can dispense with the difficulties associated with a large habitat by positing a small population. But then, as I mentioned above, we are saddled with issues associated with population dynamics - things such as demographic, environmental, and genetic stochasticity. Conservation biologists posit a Minimum Viable Population below which the species is threatened with extinction. The viability decreases with time.
Of course, one could always get around this by arguing that Clawd is, sadly, one of the last of his kind. While theoretically possible, this type of special pleading seems to speak against the 'as likely as' attribute.
Finally, as I suggested this morning, the real question is ...
Question: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, is the existence of Clawd as likely as not a viable explanation for reported Clawd-sightings?
What we've found is that there is at least circumstantial evidence to suggest that, in most cases, Clawd would have to be relatively anomalous or relatively unlikely. On the other hand, I suspect that there are plenty of studies that show the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
Getting back to the original topic, I suggest that historicity requires no anomalous or unlikely set of circumstances. On the contrary, the end of the 2nd Temple Period seems rife for the development of messianic cults and cult leaders, and the threshhold for credulity seems correspondingly low.
I'm not sure that the same can be said for the mythicists. Is it equally credible, for example, to insist without evidence that the early Church fathers fabricated James, Cephas, and the Jerusalem church, along with the storied interaction between this Judaic group and Paul? Similarly, is it equally credible to insist without evidence that the Josephus reference to James is an interpolation? Finally, for those who gain solace by the failure of the early church to quote Josephus, where in all the reams of polemic against Pagan and Jew is the 2nd century polemic on historicity?
I'm an atheist mostly interested in archaeology and early Judaic culture. As such, I am neither invested in nor threatened by a historical Jesus. At the same time, it seems to me that many, under the guise of 'skepticism', cling religiously to a rather naive and unnecessary conspiracy theory solely because it props up a set of presuppositions. The denial is quick, convenient, and often thoughtless. Maybe the real question is: What is the difference between informed skepticism and reflexive denial?
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/08/2003 19:48:20 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2003 : 20:02:11 [Permalink]
|
CA,
Okay. You did a great job of explaining your position, goddamn it. Knocked me back on the fence with that last question, you did. I'll just sit here for a while and scratch my head while I watch you guys hit the ball back and forth. Seriously, the last thing I want my opinions to ever be is "reflexive."
Best,
Les |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2003 : 20:26:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
Seriously, the last thing I want my opinions to ever be is "reflexive."
I never thought it was, which is why I took the time to respond. Oh, and keep an eye out for Clawd.  |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 12/08/2003 20:40:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2003 : 16:54:17 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
At the same time, it seems to me that many, under the guise of 'skepticism', cling religiously to a rather naive and unnecessary conspiracy theory solely because it props up a set of presuppositions.
I'm interested in hearing more about this conspiracy theory. Is it necessary for a doubter in the historicity of Jesus to think "that the early Church fathers fabricated James, Cephas, and the Jerusalem church, along with the storied interaction between this Judaic group and Paul," along with the rest of the things you mentioned? Or is that just one possibility among many (one which, I must say, I'm highly skeptical of)?
Previously, you wrote:quote:
Getting back to the original topic, I suggest that historicity requires no anomalous or unlikely set of circumstances. On the contrary, the end of the 2nd Temple Period seems rife for the development of messianic cults and cult leaders, and the threshhold for credulity seems correspondingly low.
Discounting the miracles and other supernatural phenomena, do you think that the threshold for credulity is low for a messianic cult leader by the name of Yeshua to have lived, taught, and died as written in the New Testament? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2003 : 20:04:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Is it necessary for a doubter in the historicity of Jesus to think "that the early Church fathers fabricated James, Cephas, and the Jerusalem church, along with the storied interaction between this Judaic group and Paul," along with the rest of the things you mentioned? Or is that just one possibility among many (one which, I must say, I'm highly skeptical of)?
I suspect that it's but one of many. But why should we allow for such a cult but adamantly deny an early messianic cult leader named Yeshua. While I haven't studied the issue, I suspect that sociological studies would suggest that nascent cults are typically hierarchical with a single charismatic leader at the top. That certainly seems to be the case with the messianic claimants mentioned by Josephus.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/09/2003 : 20:46:24 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
I suspect that it's but one of many.
So - and I'm just asking to make sure - you're saying the choices aren't limited to "Jesus existed" and "a conspiracy created Jesus," right?quote:
I suspect that it's but one of many. But why should we allow for such a cult but adamantly deny an early messianic cult leader named Yeshua.
I'm not sure that we have done any such thing, yet.quote:
While I haven't studied the issue, I suspect that sociological studies would suggest that nascent cults are typically hierarchical with a single charismatic leader at the top. That certainly seems to be the case with the messianic claimants mentioned by Josephus.
Okay, but that gets back to my second question:
Discounting the miracles and other supernatural phenomena, do you think that the threshold for credulity is low for a messianic cult leader by the name of Yeshua to have lived, taught, and died as written in the New Testament? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2003 : 04:01:02 [Permalink]
|
| Dave W., you're playing me, and it's getting tiresome. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
