Negative And Positive Claims And Burden Of Proof

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi all, in recent discussions about the "historical" vs. "mythical" Jesus camps, there have been a lot of assumptions that the person making the positive claim bears the burden of proof but the person making the negative claim does not. I think there's some confusion about "negative claims."  I'd like to propose a different way of framing the question, who bears the burden of proof?  

I rely on Douglas Walton, Informal Logic, 2nd ed. (2008) 11-13.

Instead of talking simply about positive vs. negative claims, let's form a distinction between assertive claims, whether positive or negative, vs. claims to cast doubt on an assertive claim.

 

A positive assertive claim is of the type "P is true" or "It is the case that P." There's some proposition, P, and the speaker asserts that it's true.

But in logic, if we can formulate P, we can formulate not-P (~P). The negative operator denies the truth of the whole proposition. If P = "the cat is on the mat," ~P = "it is not the case that the cat is on the mat."

Claims that P and that ~P are both assertive claims, one positive, one negative.

On the other hand, merely to cast doubt on a claim that P or that ~P is a weaker utterance. The doubter is not asserting that P is true or false. The doubter's assertion is about the evidential ground for the other person's assertion, and, if the doubter speaks about himself/herself, is also an assertion about his/her attitude.

Walton thus makes the helpful distinction between the burden of proof faced by someone who makes an assertive claim and the lesser burden of casting doubt faced by the person who declines to accept the assertive claim.

On p. 11 Walton provides illustrations of the difference between trying to prove a positive or negative assertive claim, i.e. that P or that ~P, and trying to cast doubt on either a positive or a negative assertive claim:

“Example 1.1 [asymmetrical persuasion dialogue] Karl is a committed believer in God who is trying to convince Erik that God exists. Erik is not convinced by Karl’s arguments and raises many doubts. Erik is not an atheist, but calls himself an agnostic. In this case, the obligations of Karl and Erik are of different types. Karl has taken upon himself to try to prove to Erik the positive thesis that God exists. Erik is a doubter (agnostic). He is not trying to prove the negative thesis that God does not exist. His obligation is only to raise questions which reflect his doubts about the acceptability of Karl’s arguments.
 

By contrast, example 1.2 is a case of a symmetrical persuasion dialogue. Example 1.2 Mary is a committed atheist who is arguing that God does not exist. Barbara is a believer in God, and she is trying to convince Mary that God does exist.
Each person is trying to refute the thesis of the other. In example 1.2, both Mary and Barbara have the same type of obligation, namely to prove her thesis. We could say that both have a positive burden of proof, whereas in example 1.1, only Karl had a positive burden of proving his thesis. Erik had only the negative burden of throwing doubts on Karl’s proof. A symmetrical persuasion dialogue is sometimes called a dispute, as contrasted with a dissent, the shorter term for an asymmetrical persuasion dialogue.”

 

Does this help frame the burden of proof for people maintaining either that the gospel Jesus is based on a real guy or  that the gospel Jesus is not based on a real guy?  Both sides face a burden of proof since both make assertive claims.  The lesser burden of casting doubt falls ONLY on the person who replies, "Your evidence does not prove your case" or the like.

 

"Jesus was not a real guy" is a negative assertive claim with a burden of proof.  "The evidence that Jesus was a real guy isn't cogent" is a weaker claim that faces the weaker burden of throwing doubt on the positive assertion that "Jesus was a real guy."

 

Note 1:  some people may think that Walton creates a straw woman in "Mary" in 1.2 because atheists don't argue that God doesn't exist.  For our purposes, I don't think this matters.  If an atheist DID maintain "that not-P," where P = "God exists," that person would be making a negative assertive claim and would bear a burden of providing proof. 

 

Note 2: in the case of claims that so-and-so in an ancient text was a real person, again, it seems to me that the positive assertive claim is, "yes, so-and-so really existed," and the negative assertive claim is, "no, so-and-so was not a real person."  The person who makes the negative assertive claim bears a burden of proof.  The person who merely says "the evidence for so-and-so's existence is not cogent" bears the lesser burden of casting doubt.  That person's burden is to show, within canons of historical methodology, that the evidence is insufficient to support a plausible claim (no one has certainty about ancient history). I think this is quite different from saying that our default position should be that Jesus was originally a figure of myth.  THAT is another assertive claim and bears a burden of proof!

[directionless]

Can't argue with that.

 

Just wanted to add that Occam's razor might be a factor in the burden of proof too. Like Carl Sagan's statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, I think Sextus is trying to get at the same thing with his urging that an explanation be parsimonious, i.e. rely on fewer rather than more assumptions.

[Overcame Faith]

I agree with your explanation of burden of proof. I have been following that thread fairly closely. It always seemed to me that both sides had their own burden of proof since they both made an assertion. I think your analysis of the burden of proof as it relates to that thread is right on the money. Well done!

[Joshpantera]

I'm not sure you're understanding why the default position is the default position, since I'm one of the people who has taken that position. Here's the quote:

 

"The person who merely says "the evidence for so-and-so's existence is not cogent" bears the lesser burden of casting doubt.  That person's burden is to show, within canons of historical methodology, that the evidence is insufficient to support a plausible claim (no one has certainty about ancient history). I think this is quite different from saying that our default position should be that Jesus was originally a figure of myth.  THAT is another assertive claim and bears a burden of proof!"

 

The above has been framed wrong since I'm well aware of the burden of proof as described. 

 

A better way of describing it would be:

 

Since no one has certainty about ancient history, and the Bible is a mythological religious text, the mythological religious text ought to be considered mythology until such time as it is proven otherwise.

 

That's Adam, Abraham, Moses, King David > Jesus of Nazareth. 

 

The first 3 are considered myth and the last two partially historical with layers of myth added. We just don't know for sure. So why then would the default be to consider Jesus historical unless proven mythological? 

 

Is there some certainty that I'm missing? 

 

No,there isn't and Tim readily admits that history is not something that brings certainty. Things are considered likely or unlikely but at the end of the day there's no way to prove which is which. To some one way, to others another way. The evidence provided is not conclusive so the question remains open as far as I'm concerned. I don't very well think that the Buddha is any thing other than mythology, or Krishna. Is there conclusive proof to say that they were? Of course there isn't.

 

Is that an irrational position? 

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

My immediate response, Josh, is that "the Bible is a mythological [my italics] religious text" is an assertive claim.  As framed, it sounds as though "mythological" extends to the whole text, and such a claim would need to be proved plausible.  The locution is vague as it stands, because, as you say further on, it at least looks as though the Bible has a considerable admixture of historical material and says a lot about figures who actually existed.  So if the "mythological" qualifier is extended to accounts of Jesus at the beginning of the inquiry as a default assumption, the inquiry is starting off threatening to beg the question.

 

If Sally maintains that P is true, and Martha replies that Sally's evidence and arguments are not cogent, Martha must take up the negative burden of casting doubt by showing why Sally is not convincing.  If Martha goes on to maintain that P is false, however, then Martha must shoulder the burden of proving her own assertive claim.

 

So perhaps there's ambiguity in "default position."  Does that phrase only refer to an attitude of skepticism about the truth of P, where P is something like "Jesus of the gospels is based on a real itinerant preacher who was crucified etc."?  Or does it go on to refer to an assumption that P so defined is false?  If the default position is the latter, it's an assertive claim and bears a burden of proof.  To say that the NT ought to be considered mythology until it's proved historical is, in my view, both an assertive claim (but I am willing to accept that you at least don't mean it so, Josh) and also vague to the point of false dichotomy, because historical and mythological elements have to be distinguished in it.

[Joshpantera]

Perhaps I've worded it wrong. I say default position because that's the way that people express why they are atheist, non-believing.

 

In mythology Gods are claimed to exist, Christianity is an extension of that class of world mythology following behind the Jewish mythology of supernatural Gods, Angels, and so on. The first claims about Jesus come from the earliest "strata" as TIm would have it. That means Paul. And Paul receives communication via revelation with a heavenly being. It's claimed that this heavenly being is a resurrected being classed as the Son of God. Tim has argued that it's a Jewish theme as of this early strata, however it's a mythological Jewish theme akin to the Roman and Greek mythologies about supernatural beings and so on. The first Jesus we encounter in the NT is a supernatural, resurrected being not a man who is talking to Paul on earth. 

 

Later, Mark comes along back tracking and giving a recollection of Jesus while he was supposedly here on earth, and then others follow suite behind Mark. So quite literally we hear of a supernatural being and then we hear of his previous life and exploits here on earth.

 

Pauline Epistles > Gospels 

 

These are fantastic stories akin to all of the world mythology leading up to this point in time. Their stories are contradictory to the point of requiring all manner of apologetic's. Many people seek to claim who the "real" Jesus was behind the mythology by trying to weed out what may seem likely or unlikely from the texts. Some people say apocalyptic preacher, some say no. Some Jewish scholars say that his story is a blend of several different rebel type biographies woven together and ascribed to Jesus. There is the problem of trying to distinguish whether sayings from John the Baptist were mixed up as if it were Jesus when it wasn't actually him. There's the Midrash issue where many stories about what Jesus did or said are lifted directly from simply retelling OT stories with characters changed around. There's dispute about just how far early Christians were willing to go with their known tampering of texts. In short, trying to sort through the confusion and supernatural claims to find a fixed historical Jesus is a messy business full of uncertainty. 

 

At the end of the day, being aware of all of the problems involved here, I simply don't believe any one's claim to knowing the real Jesus. I'm basically atheistic about the whole claim. Maybe default is the wrong word, but what I'm expressing is that I use default in the same way that some would use it for atheism or agnosticism. We don't know the truth about Jesus. And I lack positive belief in his fixed historical existence in general due to the lack of knowledge. I don't see any need for me to carry a burden of proof. I simply don't believe what people are positively claiming. 

 

I can go along with we don't know either way and start from that position. But what don't we know about Paul's Jesus? Does he not claim that Jesus is a resurrected being in existence beyond the earth? That begins this inquiry as a mythology akin to any other mythology about supernatural beings does it not?  From the starting point to the end I'm not sure where the story becomes real history if ever. 

[Overcame Faith]

There is burden of proof and there is a different concept. That concept is the burden of persuasion. In the context of ExC, where these threads appear, I think in terms of the core purpose of the forum. That core purpose is to help the newly deconverted and even those Christians who are having serious doubts about the truth of Christianity.

 

If all anyone is trying to accomplish is to debate other scholars and gain one-upsmanship, then go ahead and stick strictly to nice and tidy concepts of burdens of proof. But if one has any concern for those who are the primary concern of ExC, the newly deconverted and sincerely doubting Christians, then don't fall back on the burden of proof idea because to many of our new and suffering members, when someone asserts "burden of proof", it appears to be a cop out and the one asserting it has failed miserably in their burden of persuasion.

 

Take the issue of Jesus as myth. People who are newly deconverted just left a religion which indoctrinated them into believing that everything written in the Bible about Jesus (virgin birth, miracles, teachings, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) is true. They may need to know and understand why those things are not true. When discussing whether Jesus was man or myth and the person advocates the myth position by simply calling it the default position, that tells our suffering member nothing. They want to know why it is the default position. They want and need the burden of persuasion to be met.

 

I have said it before and I will say it again here. To our members following any of these discussions, if someone says something you do not understand, you are free to post a question or comment asking for clarification so you can better understand the concepts being discussed. To those engaging in such debates/discussions, please remember the members here and consider meeting the "burden of persuasion".

[Joshpantera]

Yes, between myself and Fincino we're speaking of things that to well read ex-christians are a given based on popular knowledge on the subject. To those who are not already familiar with New Testament studies, The Jesus Seminar, Joseph Campbell on comparative mythology and religion (meaning of myth), Biblical Minimalism per Israel Finkelstein for instance, or even the Evolution of God per Karen Armstrong (just to name a few sources behind the discussion) please feel free to investigate all of those listed for a crash course on alternative ideas to those you have received at Church and in Church school systems. There's a long, long path between just deconverting and the sort of 20+ year deconversion basis that I've been speaking from concerning my ultra skepticism about Christian claims and why I don't think that I have any burden of proof (to have to prove myself) requirement just to simply not believe in the claims that are being made about Jesus. 

 

There are 3 main camps right now in this debate:

 

1) Apologetic - Believer 

2) Historical - Secular

3) Mythicist - Secular 

 

The first 2, in my opinion, are presenting positive claims. The Believers and Apologist's start this whole thing off by holding up the Bible and pointing to it's claims. However the Bible does not prove the claims stated within the Bible, and Secular parties involved want to see evidence outside of scripture that may or may not confirm claims made within scripture. The Bible claims that Jesus existed in the time of Pilate around the early 1st century. Paul's Epistles being older than the Gospels start of right away with a resurrect Jesus who communicates with Paul through direct revelation from heaven. The first claim about Jesus' existence comes from a man who claims to have visions or revelations from Jesus. It starts off with a supernatural claim about Jesus.

 

Secular scholarship as next down line, represent a more scientific approach and assume that supernatural imagery is not historically true. With that aside an analysis of what's left after all of the supernatural imagery is removed is considered by mainstream secular scholars. From there they try and piece together what may have been originally true about the claim of Jesus existing in the early 1st century. They are essentially accepting the original supernatural oriented Christian claim as at least partially true so the burden of proof (the need to prove yourself) from the believer party now falls to the next in line, the Secular party who partially believe Christian claims and continue a form of positive assertion which originally began with the Believers making claims about a supernatural Jesus starting with Paul, which is only found within the Bible. Outside of the Bible you find Josephus in that late 1st century who was not contemporary to the life of Jesus. And behind him there a few more sources that are used moving forward into the 2nd century. These references are debated and in my opinion suspect as Secular scholarship has already acknowledged that Christian authorities have tampered with at least some of these extra Biblical sources as well as writing books in the name of Paul that were not actually written by Paul. So a pattern of dishonest tendency in passing down information had been well noted by scholars. 

 

The Mythicist's are down below in this line. It's generally secularist based too, although some modern Gnostic types take this position as well as part of their trying to get back to old spiritual roots. So I can't say all are atheists and agnostics because there are Deists, Pantheists and Panentheists, as well as some theistic preachers and clergy who also favor this position of skepticism. So it's a secular based outlook that accommodates freethinking theistic types as well. The idea is that the original claim is not trustworthy enough to accept whole cloth. The evidence for the original claim is thin, it isn't non-existent but it's thin enough to question. So you tend to see in-house quarreling between freethinking secular groups over this issue with some for the historicist theory and others the mythicist theory.

 

This may be alarming for some viewers and certainly confusing trying to follow the back and forth if you're not  already familiar with the arena. This sort of ultra skepticism tends to piss a lot of people off and it gets emotional on both sides. It seems that those who accept that Jesus did exist based on what evidence is available get really angry and driven to try and prove that they're right, or at least the most likely. There's a lot of emotion on that side. But they will call the opposing position emotional while at the same time taking personal jabs and calling people dim or ignorant for not accepting what thin evidence does exist. The emotional situation is heated and it seems that all 3 sides have something emotionally invested in it. The Believers belief is a stake. The Historicist's trust in the historical method and the long accepted historicity of Jesus is called into question. So you may see historians or even amateur historians showing signs of an emotional investment in defending their claim. Mythicist's are a rowdy bunch, being generally made up of ex-Christians who are pissed off at the degree to which Christianity has lied to us all. And we generally hold firm to argumentation and get aggressive with Believers and Historicists at times. 

 

I'm not exactly sure what's at stake for us in this debate, however.

 

Because if it turns out that mythicism can be shut down to where it can longer exist, with whatever evidence may turn up to shut it down, we'd all simply fall back to the secular historicst position that we've been countering and pressing for credible evidence. What we've all experienced is that you can't get too tied down to any one position or belief in this world because new data, new facts continue to emerge and any well intended human being should be flexible enough to adapt to the changing conditions. That's what led to our courage to leave behind our denomination or the Christian faith entirely - our flexibility and adaptation to a changing world view. 

 

Right?

 

Mythcists out there?

 

Are we the hardheaded lot that can never change, that have some sort of belief invested in the possibility that the Jesus story is not even historically true? 

 

I haven't seen any one take that position so it would be news to me. 

[mymistake]

If all anyone is trying to accomplish is to debate other scholars and gain one-upsmanship, then go ahead and stick strictly to nice and tidy concepts of burdens of proof. But if one has any concern for those who are the primary concern of ExC, the newly deconverted and sincerely doubting Christians, then don't fall back on the burden of proof idea because to many of our new and suffering members, when someone asserts "burden of proof", it appears to be a cop out and the one asserting it has failed miserably in their burden of persuasion.

 

Take the issue of Jesus as myth. People who are newly deconverted just left a religion which indoctrinated them into believing that everything written in the Bible about Jesus (virgin birth, miracles, teachings, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) is true. They may need to know and understand why those things are not true. When discussing whether Jesus was man or myth and the person advocates the myth position by simply calling it the default position, that tells our suffering member nothing. They want to know why it is the default position. They want and need the burden of persuasion to be met.

 

I'm not sure how to do that OF.  I'm not trying to one up anybody.  But if our arguments are expected to compete against indoctrination from a church that is like fighting with our arms tied behind our back.  Church leaders use all kinds of dirty tricks to fool people.  Those who choose to be true to logic and reason will not do that.  So to the untrained we will seem less persuasive.  It takes hard work to learn to spot fallacies and the churches I grew up in fed us a constant diet of fallacies.  It got our thinking inside out and upside down.  If you are concerned about new people maybe we could have a sticky thread that is devoted only to the rules of logic?  Perhaps another sticky thread that is devoted only to spotting fallacies?

[Orbit]

Shouldn't it be sufficient to say that it's axiomatic that one can't prove a negative, by the rules of logic? Therefore the burden of proof is with those making the positive claim. Saying Jesus is a myth is saying Jesus doesn't exist. That's a negative claim, can't be done.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Shouldn't it be sufficient to say that it's axiomatic that one can't prove a negative, by the rules of logic? Therefore the burden of proof is with those making the positive claim. Saying Jesus is a myth is saying Jesus doesn't exist. That's a negative claim, can't be done.

There are lots of negative claims, and you can prove a lot of them, e.g. "the cat is not on the mat."  The proof comes from perception.  Among negative claims are negative existence claims.  You can prove some:  e.g. "No cat exists that is on the mat," when the mat has no cat on it.  But I agree that there are negative existence claims that you can't prove, e.g. "I have no pot of gold under a tree."  

 

In Walton's analysis of negative and positive assertive claims, which I referenced in the OP, he allows that many arguments will make use of probable premises.  Not all premises in an argument are known to be true.  That's so especially in a field like ancient history.  Someone who develops an argument that there never was such a person as Prester John (legendary medieval Christian king of a land somewhere in the Orient) can at best establish a plausible claim.  I think that person still faces a burden of proof, as does anyone who makes an assertion.  But the proof, I agree, of many negative assertive claims won't be by deduction from premises, all of which are known to be true.  So it won't be conclusive.

 

My friend right now is filling out papers for Medicaid to get his mother in law's nursing home coverage onto Medicaid.  He has to prove that she has no more than, I think, $2700 in assets, that no money has been hidden away, etc.  He can't prove any of these things with certainty.  She might have a pot of gold hidden somewhere.  His proof of a negative assertive claim will rest on the documents that are accepted as valid within the scope of the inquiry.

 

Anyway, for the person who is breaking free of Christianity, I think the gospels have so many problems that even if the Jesus character is based on a real itinerant preacher, one can make a very conclusive case that the gospels are full of errors.  And I agree with Blood, Josh and others that there are many elements in them that are found in myths.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Here's a brief intro on negative proofs, including a bit about how we do often "prove" a negative thesis - i.e. within the scope of a certain inquiry.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

 

For those who, like me, like examining arguments, I'll just repeat what I proposed earlier:  to undermine the argument/s for an assertive claim does not constitute a falsification of that claim.  To undermine those arguments, one needs to present some counterevidence and/or logical analysis that is appropriate to the domain of the inquiry (canons of plausibility in ancient history are not the same as those in, say, dictionary writing).  To go on to argue that the original claim is false, one needs to shoulder the burden of proof appropriate to the inquiry.  I suggest that there are many negative assertive claims for which we can develop strong arguments.  But short of that, one is rationally justified in declining to accept the truth of a claim when the evidence for it has been undermined.

[Fernweh]

Are there any good book recommendations on formal logic?  

[Orbit]

Here's a brief intro on negative proofs, including a bit about how we do often "prove" a negative thesis - i.e. within the scope of a certain inquiry.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

 

For those who, like me, like examining arguments, I'll just repeat what I proposed earlier:  to undermine the argument/s for an assertive claim does not constitute a falsification of that claim.  To undermine those arguments, one needs to present some counterevidence and/or logical analysis that is appropriate to the domain of the inquiry (canons of plausibility in ancient history are not the same as those in, say, dictionary writing).  To go on to argue that the original claim is false, one needs to shoulder the burden of proof appropriate to the inquiry.  I suggest that there are many negative assertive claims for which we can develop strong arguments.  But short of that, one is rationally justified in declining to accept the truth of a claim when the evidence for it has been undermined.

I think what we have here though, is a negative claim along the lines of Russell's Teapot. You will never be able to prove that there is not a teapot in orbit; you will also never be able to prove that Jesus did not exist. Jesus is not a cat on a mat, where we can observe the mat to see if the cat is there. The conditions of the Jesus claim make it an unprovable negative claim.

[directionless]

Ficino, instead of the {true, false, unconvinced} what about real number [0 to 1]?

 

This is different from having different standards for different fields of knowledge (science, history, ...) You need probabilities to calculate expected returns on different possibilities IMO. Let's say you are an intelligence analyst at the CIA or something.

 

Here is the wikipedia on decision theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

[♦ ficino ♦]

^^^ Yes, I think that's true, when "Jesus" is rightly described as the real guy about whom blah blah.  I agree that there are some negative claims that can't be proved.  I don't go along with the blanket statement, one cannot prove a negative. 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Are there any good book recommendations on formal logic?  

When I was in college we used Samuel Guttenplan and Martin Tamney, Formal Logic (1971 - egad).  I thought it was pretty clear.  They have an updated book, The Languages of Logic:

 

http://www.bookdepository.com/Languages-Logic-Samuel-Guttenplan/9781557869883

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ficino, instead of the {true, false, unconvinced} what about real number [0 to 1]?

 

This is different from having different standards for different fields of knowledge (science, history, ...) You need probabilities to calculate expected returns on different possibilities IMO. Let's say you are an intelligence analyst at the CIA or something.

 

Here is the wikipedia on decision theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

Interesting idea.  I haven't worked on this so I can't comment.  I wonder whether Richard Carrier with his Bayesian approach is trying to get at the same thing, i.e. to establish probabilities.  I don't know whether the calculus one would use in making a decision about what to do is the same as what one would use in trying to establish the plausibility of an account of ancient events.

 

I think Steve Bennett a while back was urging that CIA intelligence analysis provides a good framework for making judgments about history.

 

I would not put forth the trichotomy you have in your first sentence, though.  True and False are properties of propositions.  When we make judgments about propositions, I think you can transfer "true" and "false" to the judgment itself.  Unconvinced, though, is a property of some person who's trying to make a judgment.  Perhaps your third class would be something like "pseudoproposition"?  I.e. an utterance that is neither true nor false and therefore is not really a proposition?  Or from the point of view of the judger, perhaps a trichotomy of propositions would be "believed to be true/believed to be false/unknown?"  Or something like that.

 

Anyway, your point questioning the acceptance of different standards in different domains of knowledge is very interesting.  If we can say, ancient history must content itself with lower standards of proof than physics, we imply that we have access to some overarching set of standards by which we can delimit the domain of history and that of physics.  So, cool.

[directionless]

 

Ficino, instead of the {true, false, unconvinced} what about real number [0 to 1]?

 

This is different from having different standards for different fields of knowledge (science, history, ...) You need probabilities to calculate expected returns on different possibilities IMO. Let's say you are an intelligence analyst at the CIA or something.

 

Here is the wikipedia on decision theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

Interesting idea.  I haven't worked on this so I can't comment.  I wonder whether Richard Carrier with his Bayesian approach is trying to get at the same thing, i.e. to establish probabilities.  I don't know whether the calculus one would use in making a decision about what to do is the same as what one would use in trying to establish the plausibility of an account of ancient events.

 

I think Steve Bennett a while back was urging that CIA intelligence analysis provides a good framework for making judgments about history.

 

I would not put forth the trichotomy you have in your first sentence, though.  True and False are properties of propositions.  When we make judgments about propositions, I think you can transfer "true" and "false" to the judgment itself.  Unconvinced, though, is a property of some person who's trying to make a judgment.  Perhaps your third class would be something like "pseudoproposition"?  I.e. an utterance that is neither true nor false and therefore is not really a proposition?  Or from the point of view of the judger, perhaps a trichotomy of propositions would be "believed to be true/believed to be false/unknown?"  Or something like that.

 

Anyway, your point questioning the acceptance of different standards in different domains of knowledge is very interesting.  If we can say, ancient history must content itself with lower standards of proof than physics, we imply that we have access to some overarching set of standards by which we can delimit the domain of history and that of physics.  So, cool.

 

That is a good point about the truth or falsity of a proposition being a distinct property from the degree of belief each person has in that proposition. So the proposition has {true,false} but that value can't be known by humans except through reasoning and debating. Each human has a subjective probability from 0 to 1 for each proposition. Maybe organizations could develop recipes for agreeing on a more objective probability (averaging every member's probability for example).

 

Would a pseudoproposition be something subjective like "I feel good"? I probably don't understand what you're suggesting on pseudopropositions.

 

I wonder if a formal separation is needed between science and history. Instead we could simply say that the limitations of the evidence and the urgency of making an informed guess about true/false would define the standards?

[Orbit]

Science and history are in no way equivalent and subjecting them to one standard is not only reductionism, it's nonsense. They deal with qualitatively different data and phenomenon.

[directionless]

What do we mean specifically when we say "you can't prove a negative"?

 

I think what people are really saying is that some propositions require an infinite (or impractical) amount of investigation to prove to be true or false. This is related to Popper's idea that scientific propositions must be falsifiable (i.e. we should be able to prove them false by finding one exception).

 

Maybe people should say "you can't prove a positive"?

 

So we should think about these issues differently. Like Ficino mentioned in OP, it doesn't matter if the proposition is positive or negative, but it does matter if you are claiming the proposition is not proven versus claiming the proposition is true or false. But there are other issues like whether a finite number of experiments can decide if the proposition is true or false.

 

I don't know if what I wrote makes sense. I'm just brainstorming.

[mymistake]

What do we mean specifically when we say "you can't prove a negative"?

 

I think what people are really saying is that some propositions require an infinite (or impractical) amount of investigation to prove to be true or false. This is related to Popper's idea that scientific propositions must be falsifiable (i.e. we should be able to prove them false by finding one exception).

 

Maybe people should say "you can't prove a positive"?

 

So we should think about these issues differently. Like Ficino mentioned in OP, it doesn't matter if the proposition is positive or negative, but it does matter if you are claiming the proposition is not proven versus claiming the proposition is true or false. But there are other issues like whether a finite number of experiments can decide if the proposition is true or false.

 

I don't know if what I wrote makes sense. I'm just brainstorming.

 

 

It is possible to prove a negative but this is very difficult.  The circumstances that make it possible are often rare except for trivial matters.  The Problem Of Evil is a classic example from philosophy where a negative is proven.  In that case it proves that the God from Christian theology is impossible.

 

If somebody demanded that you prove that there in no Superman could you do it?  You could cite a lack of evidence for Superman.  But perhaps Superman is in outer space and he has not yet arrived on Earth.  You could cite the mountain of evidence that demonstrates humans created Superman in comic books and later in television shows and movies.  But perhaps those are prophesies that the real Superman will fulfill when he finally arrives on Earth.

 

This is why certain people have argued that we should assume the negative and wait for evidence before positive claims are taken seriously.  Until evidence of the positive comes in the positive claim is at best a hypothesis to be tested.

 

Now back to historic Jesus:

If we uncover the original manuscript for Josephus and the original for Galatians and find that neither one mentions James had a brother named Jesus would that prove that there was no historical Jesus?  No, it would not.  Finding such evidence would make the case for a historical Jesus even weaker than it is now but really without a time machine we are never going to have the evidence it would take to prove there was no historical Jesus.  And chances are the original manuscripts for Josephus, Galatians and many other helpful works were destroyed long ago.  So the mythic camp is never going to prove their case.  Does that make them wrong?  Well if the mythic theory is wrong then it is very ironic how Christianity unfolded in a pattern that is so similar to fictional characters inspiring other religions.

[directionless]

It is possible to prove a negative but this is very difficult.  The circumstances that make it possible are often rare except for trivial matters.  The Problem Of Evil is a classic example from philosophy where a negative is proven.  In that case it proves that the God from Christian theology is impossible.

 

If somebody demanded that you prove that there in no Superman could you do it?  You could cite a lack of evidence for Superman.  But perhaps Superman is in outer space and he has not yet arrived on Earth.  You could cite the mountain of evidence that demonstrates humans created Superman in comic books and later in television shows and movies.  But perhaps those are prophesies that the real Superman will fulfill when he finally arrives on Earth.

 

This is why certain people have argued that we should assume the negative and wait for evidence before positive claims are taken seriously.  Until evidence of the positive comes in the positive claim is at best a hypothesis to be tested.

 

Now back to historic Jesus:

If we uncover the original manuscript for Josephus and the original for Galatians and find that neither one mentions James had a brother named Jesus would that prove that there was no historical Jesus?  No, it would not.  Finding such evidence would make the case for a historical Jesus even weaker than it is now but really without a time machine we are never going to have the evidence it would take to prove there was no historical Jesus.  And chances are the original manuscripts for Josephus, Galatians and many other helpful works were destroyed long ago.  So the mythic camp is never going to prove their case.  Does that make them wrong?  Well if the mythic theory is wrong then it is very ironic how Christianity unfolded in a pattern that is so similar to fictional characters inspiring other religions.

I see what you're saying, but I think we could theoretically find evidence to give a lot of confidence in the mythical Jesus proposition. Imagine we found a letter where Paul is asking for advice on whether he should have Jesus crucified or stoned or executed in some other way? That would be strong evidence if it could be shown to be an authentic letter of Paul, and then we would know that Paul invented Christianity from scratch as some people have suggested.

 

I think the default should be "I'm not convinced the Jesus of the gospels was based on historical person, but I'm also not convinced of the opposite".

[directionless]

One difference between history and science is that historical propositions describe what happened one time in the past whereas scientific propositions describe what happens always.

 

I don't know if that is an important difference for investigating and debating propositions, but it seems like it might be.