Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [GPG] Matthew and "Q"

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: WSW In Response To: Dave G On: Hypotheses vs Guess From: Bruce Couldn t we use some agreed nomenclature in this area? DAVE: Also, if the only
    Message 1 of 34 , May 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: WSW
      In Response To: Dave G
      On: Hypotheses vs Guess
      From: Bruce

      Couldn't we use some agreed nomenclature in this area?

      DAVE: Also, if the only thing we had to go on was the statistical results,
      then I would agree in calling what I proposed a "guess". Also, I partly
      agree that the data we have here is so thin that anything we say is often
      little more than a guess. However, I think I have enough support in this
      case to at least call it a 'hypothesis'.

      BRUCE: I think a little better than Dave here seems to of statistics; a good
      statistical result, at least in some cases, comes complete with a label as
      to its probable accuracy or range. Very grownup. But letting that go, I
      approve his hierarchy of certainty labels. In general. I would like to
      mention a few more, from what I understand of practice in mathematics. My
      concern is that when careful people use careful terms, other less careful
      people may then be inclined to dismiss the result as "just an opinion." In
      the reputable cases, it is much more than opinion. My picture would go like
      this:

      1. There are no certainties in history, and no deductive proof in history.
      Let's get that straight at the outset. So all statements, even ones well
      based in terms of the presently available evidence, are inferences from
      evidence, and any inference is always open to a better statement, or to a
      different statement based on better evidence. So an individual's failure to
      exude confidence may be a mark of discretion, and not a badge of
      foolishness. I recommend discretion. Though it does lead to longer
      sentences.

      2. There are degrees of reasonableness in different ways of reading the
      evidence, and it is not so much the job of history to pick out the right
      answer and discard the others, as to choose between more and less adequate
      treatments of evidence, or arguments from evidence. The ability to make that
      distinction is an essential part of technique in the art of doing history.
      As also in astrophysics.

      3. A "hypothesis," as I usually encounter it, is a preferred working
      conclusion. It is still being subjected to evidential testing, but has
      emerged from previous testing as apparently superior to other alternatives.
      (Sometimes one can entertain two hypotheses at once; statistics will also
      handle that situation, and can help to determine which one of them works
      better with the known evidence).

      4. The hierarchy terms as I understand and/or recommend them are then:

      (a). conclusion. a decision between hypotheses. End of thinking for the time
      being. In math, this would be a proved conjecture, sometimes called a
      theorem.
      (b). hypothesis. a preferred inference still being tested for its fit with
      evidence.
      (c). conjecture. a reasoned guess from evidence, but without full
      confirmation from evidence.
      (d). speculation. a guess without evidential basis; impressionistic or
      arbitrary.
      (e). refusal to guess. no evidence at all; question undecidable and even
      unguessable.

      Dave seems to use a two-grade system, where there is nothing between
      "hypothesis" (my b) and "guess" (d). This is merely to suggest that there
      may be intermediate levels. And more generally that in this area, humanities
      folks might with advantage pick up a vocabulary hint from their colleagues
      at the numerate end of the park bench.

      But there is more than one hint available. Does anybody have a different
      hierarchy of labels for more and less certain results, that works for them?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    • Dave Gentile
      ... Dave: Better , is a subjective judgment. Personally I d prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that s just my subjective judgment.
      Message 34 of 34 , May 15, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron:

        >
        > Dave,
        >
        > What you propose is clearly not impossible. But it is certainly not as good
        > as the original. What you present here is a brief general call to
        > repentance, followed by scenarios of people eager to repent. In our extant
        > Luke there is a warning of wrath and fire, so that by verse 10 one can sense
        > the crowds feeling guilty and ready to make amends. It parallels an
        > evangelistic meeting where there is a lengthy build-up of emotion before a
        > challenge to commitment. Luke was a good storyteller!

        Dave:

        'Better', is a subjective judgment. Personally I'd prefer a version without the fire and brimstone, but that's just my subjective judgment.

        Consistency, and sticking with a theme is a less subjective measure.


        Ron:

        >
        > But there remains the jump in the opposite direction, between verses 3 & 4.
        > In the extant text vv. 4-6 represent a temporary departure from the theme of
        > repentance so that Luke can portray the Jewish scriptures as hinting at the
        > salvation of the Gentiles (v.6).

        I really don't see this as much of a jump, if any. v3 mentions forgiveness (group not named), and the quote from Isaiah's 'punchline' is about salvation (for all). "Forgiveness -> salvation" seems like theme continuity to me.

        I've not had a chance to look at the rest yet. Probably Tuesday, if not before then.

        Dave
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.