Furrowed Brow wrote:Goose wrote: So, you are saying that a conclusion to a cogent inductive argument based on evidence, all be it scanty evidence, where there simply is no other strong competing theory with equal explanatory power and scope is the winner.
I’d say the cogent inductive argument without a competitor is our only cogent inductive argument, and that’ll be the provisional winner in the absent of competing cogent arguments.
There will always be a competitor. How else would aspiring doctoral candidates earn their doctorates if not for the creation of competing theories? Think of all the University profs under pressure to get published. There will ALWAYS be competing theories. However, we can't have two equally cogent arguments - that is equal in cogency. One will always surpass another. One will rest upon stronger premises supported by stronger evidence. Or are you saying cogency is subjective? I don't see how you can now as you've already acknowledged, for example, that the evidence supports the conclusion that King Tut existed. This would be the best explanation for the evidence. It would be the strongest argument.
Furrowed Brow wrote:Goose wrote: So the rational thing to do would be to discard a speculation rich and evidence poor theory in favour of a better explanation with evidence for support? And continue that process until we have the BEST explanation? Is that another fair summary?
More or less. Everything is provisional when interpreting historical evidence. Evidence is evidence. There are documents, statues, artefacts etc, but the picture we gain from them, and how we interpret their import is another matter...
I think I understand what you are saying to a degree. If evidence is evidence, then what that evidence suggests does not change and is not subjective. The evidence remains constant unless new evidence is discovered. The only thing that changes is our world views and as you've suggested our interpretations. That, though, does not preclude objectivity in matters of history. It does not mean history is an entirely subjective endeavour -i.e. what is true for you is not necessarily true for me.
Furrowed Brow wrote:..Further evidence, or a new reinterpretation may dislodge old ideas.
I would agree that further evidence
could show old ideas true or false. I would disagree that new
interpretations of old evidence would necessarily prove old ideas true or false.
Furrowed Brow wrote:Goose wrote: Our information on Tut is pretty scanty at best. So, you currently believe Tut existed. However, if evidence surfaced that claimed he also walked on water, he would then, in your view, become mythical? Is that a fair assessment?
It depends on the nature of the evidence. If you have a bunch of hieroglyphs that talk about Tut the king, and then one turns up somewhere that talks about the miracles of tut. Maybe not. But if the whole Tut story was predicated on his divinity, I would not believe in the supernatural King tut...
I'm always leery about methodologies that begin with "It depends..." So what is the
actual ratio or tipping point? It sounds like a ratio of 1 supernatural account is acceptable. But why? Why is one OK? What if there were two or three supernatural versions and seven non, then what? What if there was one non supernatural and the rest supernatural? If you hold to your naturalistic world view and are consistent you
should dismiss all historical figures or events that have anything supernatural associated with them. Is there a specific number or is just your gut instincts fuelled by an anti-supernatural bias? This sounds very subjective and problematic.
Furrowed Brow wrote:...If there were no artefacts and no body, and just stories about his divinity, then I’d class Tut along with Jesus, and King Arthur.
Well, you don't even know for sure the body IS Tut so that isn't really a valid criteria. Your
classing is based upon a bias toward the supernatural then, and not based upon an objective methodology or evaluation of the evidence.
Your below methodology has some merit but I'm struggling to see how it could be practically applied to an ancient event/person whether it be supernatural or natural. These seem more like your personal reasons why you dismiss the supernatural more than an objective methodology. Maybe a demonstration of an actual event or person would help me understand.
Goose wrote: Do you make that decision a priori ? If not, what method do you employ to arrive at this conclusion?
Furrowed Brow wrote:1/ Empirical Methodology: physics, biology, chemistry. Surface tension of water that kind of thing.
Empirical methodology requires observable and repeatable data or events, yes? How could you observe and repeat a historical event that is technically speaking non-repeatable? And in the case of ancient history non-observable. To employ the scientific process to answer a historical question would be a fallacy. Not to mention you need to sacrifice some of the core tenents of the scientific process to do so. It wouldn't really be science but pseudo-science. Perhaps you are confusing what naturalism determines to be
feasible through the scientific process with how we answer a historical question.
Furrowed Brow wrote:2/ Philosophical methodology: leading to a positivistic outlook. Supernaturalism is not accepted as a cogent point of view.
By who? Those who reject the supernatural? Further, a philosophical argument does not answer a historical question.
Furrowed Brow wrote:3/ Inductive methodology: personal experience of how the world works, human nature, and the ease with which a false belief can become embedded in a group.
I'm not sure how those are "Inductive methodology." It sounds more like "assumption methodology." Maybe you could explain. If you are willing to appeal to your personal experience why would you reject testimony from others regarding the supernatural?
Furrowed Brow wrote:4/ Psychology: false memories and false reporting of events.
I'm not worried about minor mistakes in reporting events. Now, if you are implying intentional deceit, that will take evidence to prove.
Furrowed Brow wrote:5/ Politics/sociology: the power plays, myths, symbolism that come in to play to give group an identity.
We can always consider those things. But should our assumptions about these things out weigh direct evidence that might contradict our assumptions?
Furrowed Brow wrote:Goose wrote: The majority of info about Julius Caesar comes from Romans who claimed his deity. Are you now saying you don't believe Julius Caesar existed?
It is not that people believe someone to be a deity, but that all the evidence comes from people who deeply committed to believing the deity myth, and all the documents are written by such people to purvey the deity story...
Isn't the same for Julius Caesar though? If your rejection of evidence is based upon your perception of bias then that eliminates much of the evidence that supports history. It sounds more like you are rejecting supernatural testimony because it comes from believers. It appears to be the Genetic Fallacy combined with question-begging about the supernatural.
Furrowed Brow wrote:...So for any JC for which there are contemporary artefacts such as coins and busts,...
Coins and busts don't prove existence. They prove that someone
believed the person existed. They would be another piece of evidence in the puzzle. The rational thing to do would be to ask if we should
expect there to be coins and busts of the person in question. If you require coins and busts for every historical person in order to prove their existence then that is very problematic. In fact, that would mean I do not exist.
Furrowed Brow wrote:... for which we have his[Julius Caesar's] own writings,..
What methodology do you employ to conclude Caesar wrote anything? The
Civil/Gallic Wars are technically speaking anonymous. And what's worse, they are written in the third person. You are begging the question again.
Furrowed Brow wrote:... plus writings of his friends and his enemies,..
So you are saying if we have an enemy source that would be powerful evidence, yes? Wouldn't Julius' friends be considered biased and interested sources? Why would you trust them? Which enemies wrote about Julius Caesar? Cicero wasn't an enemy in the sense you mean it.
Furrowed Brow wrote:...plus the establishment of a new kind of government that lasted four hundred of years...
How does that prove existence? Christians could make the same type of case about the rise of Christianity. Muslims could make the same case about the rise of Islam
Furrowed Brow wrote:... all put any such JC in the category of real historical character.
You are making many assumptions with Caesar. What we
really have is another inductive argument. The best explanation for the evidence is that Julius existed, yes?