Historical terms: Data, Unverified, Interpretation etc.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Historical terms: Data, Unverified, Interpretation etc.

Post #1

Post by liamconnor »

Here is a quote from another member
What "data"? All you have to go by are unverifiable stories.
The implication was that the unverifiable stories do not constitute data.

This raises a problem of definition, and I think communication on the topic will not get very far if we do not define what we mean, but also give examples.

What do people mean by these (and please offer other) terms? How do you apply them to Christian documents?


I will begin the discussion analyzing the term 'data'.


da·ta
ˈdadə,ˈd�də/Submit
noun
facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

Now according to this definition, the above complaint is obviously confused. He has acknowledged that we have, at the very least, stories. A less slanted and more professional term would be 'reports' or 'testimonies'.

thus we have testimonies. Does that mean they are necessarily true? Of course not. But they stand as facts nonetheless. If a person claimed he came to work on a unicorn, then the following would be a fact: a person came into work and subsequently claimed he got there by unicorn.

That the claim was made constitutes data.

Here is the data for the question of the resurrection:

There is a period in history before which no one talked of a resurrected Nazarene.

There is a period after which people did; the transition can be dated with impressive precision (at least as far as goes dating for that age).

We have claims made which give names witnessing certain events: Paul and the gospels.

That is data. It is incontrovertible. To say it does not constitute data is to say that we don't have such a thing as 1 Cor. 15, or the gospel of Mark. Those who wish to interject 'just cause people claimed it doesn't make it true' are simply making themselves look silly. No one, at this point, is asking about the historicity of the claims, but only whether the claims were made.


Do I have this wrong? Is there no data?

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #2

Post by Neatras »

You tacked on a question at the end that is effectively rhetorical. I move that this does not constitute a debate topic.

Also, I move that liam should take the time to address the dozen or so topics he's made in the last 3 days. Some of them which have relevance to historical evidence, and so make this topic redundant.

Also, I move that liam take some time to research how religions other than his preferred one develop. Take, for example, Heaven's Gate, which was started out of the blue, gained swift popularity, and promptly ended with the collective suicide of all its members. Many of which left video diaries during the progress of their membership in Heaven's Gate leading directly up to their suicide; these videos have provided incredible insight into the development of religion and how it infests in the human mind. It's informative, insightful, and provides a context for how religious rumors can spread into fully-fledged religions: It's a backdrop for the kind of brain that is vulnerable to being conned by snake oil salesmen or religious con artists.

To address the topic (because I have to at least stay relevant insofar as advancing the discussion put forward by liam, as rhetorical and leading as it is), I'll answer that your definition of data is very unrestrained. I know where you're leading with this: Because of Christianity's popularity, it naturally accrues a large amount of "data" which you will later assert (through leading questions) is supporting its veracity. But it falls to others in this discussion to point out that your definitions, loaded terms, and general willingness to stack the deck in your favor also slips in some wild cards, such as suicide cults (who have plotted data points throughout all of history, including recent history), or pseudoscience (claims of homeopathy's veracity).

I'll predict that you'll answer this by assuming some fatal flaw in pseudoscience or non-christian religions (a highly specific range to exclude from), and dismiss them from the discussion, instead insisting we focus exclusively on Christianity. Hopefully our viewers will see the flaws in this methodology (if the cards happen to fall that way).

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Historical terms: Data, Unverified, Interpretation etc.

Post #3

Post by Bust Nak »

liamconnor wrote: Do I have this wrong? Is there no data?
Depends on what you mean by data. It is obvious that your standard is less vigorous than the person you quoted. You are essentially arguing semantics here.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Historical terms: Data, Unverified, Interpretation etc.

Post #4

Post by Kenisaw »

liamconnor wrote: Here is a quote from another member
What "data"? All you have to go by are unverifiable stories.
The implication was that the unverifiable stories do not constitute data.

This raises a problem of definition, and I think communication on the topic will not get very far if we do not define what we mean, but also give examples.

What do people mean by these (and please offer other) terms? How do you apply them to Christian documents?


I will begin the discussion analyzing the term 'data'.


da·ta
ˈdadə,ˈd�də/Submit
noun
facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

Now according to this definition, the above complaint is obviously confused. He has acknowledged that we have, at the very least, stories. A less slanted and more professional term would be 'reports' or 'testimonies'.

thus we have testimonies. Does that mean they are necessarily true? Of course not. But they stand as facts nonetheless. If a person claimed he came to work on a unicorn, then the following would be a fact: a person came into work and subsequently claimed he got there by unicorn.

That the claim was made constitutes data.

Here is the data for the question of the resurrection:

There is a period in history before which no one talked of a resurrected Nazarene.

There is a period after which people did; the transition can be dated with impressive precision (at least as far as goes dating for that age).

We have claims made which give names witnessing certain events: Paul and the gospels.

That is data. It is incontrovertible. To say it does not constitute data is to say that we don't have such a thing as 1 Cor. 15, or the gospel of Mark. Those who wish to interject 'just cause people claimed it doesn't make it true' are simply making themselves look silly. No one, at this point, is asking about the historicity of the claims, but only whether the claims were made.


Do I have this wrong? Is there no data?
You have this wrong. Testimonies are claims of facts. They are not, in of themselves, facts. Facts are something that anyone can gather themselves. Your "data" is made up of claims. In other words, it is fact that there are claims. And, what are claims?

CLAIM:
1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

So nice try, there's why, have a nice day bye.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Historical terms: Data, Unverified, Interpretation etc.

Post #5

Post by liamconnor »

[Replying to post 4 by Kenisaw]
You have demonstrated your inability to read:

thus we have testimonies. Does that mean they are necessarily true? Of course not.
that is what I said. Then you said:
Testimonies are claims of facts. They are not, in of themselves, facts.
Did you mean to repeat what I said in an argumentative tone? do you think that this kind of response strengthens your position?[/quote]

There is a letter. Pick up any Bible. Turn to a book called 1 Cor. Flip the pages to chapter 15. Read the chapter.


Now, we have claims.

Now, either you depart from nearly all historians and determine that this letter was composed by the some Roman official in a dusty room given the assignment to promulgate a religion among Jews: that is, "Paul", "Peter", "the Corinthians" "James" "Jesus"........all of these are made up by Rome.....


Or, you have to deal with the data: that there was a Paul; he in fact wrote a letter; that letter claimed certain things.


A real historian would not cry out "Ha! just because this supposed guy claimed something doesn't mean it is true".

No, a real historian has been educated in historical inquiry. He asks, "What events led to the writing of this letter?"

(again, please cease from sending me insulting donations which are not authentic).

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2362
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Post #6

Post by Realworldjack »

Neatras wrote: You tacked on a question at the end that is effectively rhetorical. I move that this does not constitute a debate topic.

Also, I move that liam should take the time to address the dozen or so topics he's made in the last 3 days. Some of them which have relevance to historical evidence, and so make this topic redundant.

Also, I move that liam take some time to research how religions other than his preferred one develop. Take, for example, Heaven's Gate, which was started out of the blue, gained swift popularity, and promptly ended with the collective suicide of all its members. Many of which left video diaries during the progress of their membership in Heaven's Gate leading directly up to their suicide; these videos have provided incredible insight into the development of religion and how it infests in the human mind. It's informative, insightful, and provides a context for how religious rumors can spread into fully-fledged religions: It's a backdrop for the kind of brain that is vulnerable to being conned by snake oil salesmen or religious con artists.

To address the topic (because I have to at least stay relevant insofar as advancing the discussion put forward by liam, as rhetorical and leading as it is), I'll answer that your definition of data is very unrestrained. I know where you're leading with this: Because of Christianity's popularity, it naturally accrues a large amount of "data" which you will later assert (through leading questions) is supporting its veracity. But it falls to others in this discussion to point out that your definitions, loaded terms, and general willingness to stack the deck in your favor also slips in some wild cards, such as suicide cults (who have plotted data points throughout all of history, including recent history), or pseudoscience (claims of homeopathy's veracity).

I'll predict that you'll answer this by assuming some fatal flaw in pseudoscience or non-christian religions (a highly specific range to exclude from), and dismiss them from the discussion, instead insisting we focus exclusively on Christianity. Hopefully our viewers will see the flaws in this methodology (if the cards happen to fall that way).
Also, I move that liam take some time to research how religions other than his preferred one develop.
Could you please explain how this would make any difference? In other words, how would determining how other religions developed, have any bearing at all upon whether Christianity were true, or not?

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Historical terms: Data, Unverified, Interpretation etc.

Post #7

Post by Kenisaw »

liamconnor wrote: [Replying to post 4 by Kenisaw]

You have demonstrated your inability to read:
thus we have testimonies. Does that mean they are necessarily true? Of course not.
that is what I said. Then you said:
Testimonies are claims of facts. They are not, in of themselves, facts.
Did you mean to repeat what I said in an argumentative tone? do you think that this kind of response strengthens your position?
You've completely missed the point I'm afraid. Testimonies are not facts. They are claims of something happening or occurring, without any way to verify or validate it. They are stories, nothing more. I would like to note that this has been explained to you previously by the way.

It has also been noted several times to you that claims are not equal in stature or plausibility. Testimony that involves baseless conjecture, like magic and gods, requires extraordinary evidence to support it. Despite repeated requests to you to provide such data, none has ever been forthcoming.
There is a letter. Pick up any Bible. Turn to a book called 1 Cor. Flip the pages to chapter 15. Read the chapter.
I did. I ran across this: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

Now that's pretty useless, wouldn't you agree?
Now, we have claims.

Now, either you depart from nearly all historians and determine that this letter was composed by the some Roman official in a dusty room given the assignment to promulgate a religion among Jews: that is, "Paul", "Peter", "the Corinthians" "James" "Jesus"........all of these are made up by Rome.....


Or, you have to deal with the data: that there was a Paul; he in fact wrote a letter; that letter claimed certain things.


A real historian would not cry out "Ha! just because this supposed guy claimed something doesn't mean it is true".

No, a real historian has been educated in historical inquiry. He asks, "What events led to the writing of this letter?"
Right, claims. We've covered this before. Claims from the most edited book in history. Got it....
(again, please cease from sending me insulting donations which are not authentic).
It was authentic ;)

YahWhat
Apprentice
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 11:44 am

Post #8

Post by YahWhat »

The "data" shows a legend growing over time. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristi ... over_time/

Post Reply