- --- Bob Schacht wrote:
> ... I want to point to a problem with the phrase "objectivelyYes, 'haphazardly selected' is much better wording. The reason I put
> selected," which post-modernists have taught us to distrust. The
> situation Mike describes is more akin to "haphazardly selected;"
> bias can be due to all kinds of things other than conscious intent.
my own phrase in scare-quotes is that I knew it wasn't quite right,
but I couldn't think of a better one at the time. However, I note
that you agree with Dave that new historical data (e.g., DSS and Nag
Hammadi) is _not_ presented to us "randomly", and you assert
categorically that "Haphazard is NOT the same as random!". Perhaps
you can speak about the distinction between them, since I can't
think of any substantial difference.
> "H is probable" is not a useful construction. Any hypothesis isThat's not what the word 'probable' means, Bob, and on reflection
> "probable" in the sense of having a probability ranging between
> 0 and 100.
I think you'll realize that. 'Probable' means 'likely to be true'
(i.e. probability > 50%), not just 'possibly true' (i.e.,
probability > 0). The schematic form can be expressed as
"Probably H" or "It's likely that H", if that helps.
- I know this is off topic, however, during the past few days I noticed the
discussion going on about the use of copyrighhted material. Anyway, my
question is this, how do I properly cite a web page I used information from
in an academic paper. I am a student and an interested historical Jesus
individual. I realize this is off topic so please send reply to me off the
Thomas G. Barnes