Subject: Logic in TC

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:11:33 -0500 (EST)

>While logical consistency is a minimal necessity for a theory or 
>an explanatory model, it is hardly sufficient.  
>

But, Nichael, is not the whole of TC based on hypotheses which are
constructed logically, and then verified or falsified?
For example, a logical a priori is operative in TC that the manuscripts have
either been "tampered with" (accidentally or intentionally), or that they
have not been tampered with.  With this logical hypothesis in place TC'ers
examine mss and either verify or falsify the a priori.
Therefore the whole discipline is based on logic.  My question, then, again,
if this logic is in place, and it is followed- then must not the result be
called "evidence"?

>The Ptolemaic model of the Solar System or the various "humor" models of
>disease propogation were perfectly logically consistent. They simply
>happened to be based on erroneous data. 
>

Indeed- but the data themselves were wrong.  What if, in TC, the a priori
assumptions are wrong?  What if changes arose "only" because of accidental
changes?  In short, how can the a priori presuppostions be verified or
falsified in TC since we cannot ask any scribes of the first 4 centuries?

>N

Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:51:20 -0700

On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote (quoting

>>an explanatory model, it is hardly sufficient.  

Actually, "logical consistency" is not absolutely necessary. All
that is needed is statistical repeatability. If you don't believe
me, try quantum mechanicas. It makes no sense, it is truly weird
and logically inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics -- but,
statistically, it works (at least until you reach relativistic
speeds).

This is *not* a nitpick (though I don't expect anyone to buy
the argument). This is why I think valid statistical methods
are so important in TC -- and part of why I am so upset at
the bad statistical methods I've seen.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:21:41 -0400 (EDT)

Jim West wrote:
> Therefore the whole discipline [of TC] is based on logic. 

Again, in part, obviously.  In total, no.

> ... My question, then, again, if this logic is in place, and it is 
> followed- then must not the result be called "evidence"?

Only by someone having no understanding of what consitutes either "evidence"
or "logic". 

> falsified in TC since we cannot ask any scribes of the first 4 centuries?

In precisely the way in which such things are verified in _any_ discipline in
which straightforward laboratory experiments are not directly possible. 
Astronomy, evolutionary biology, or elementary particle physics (to pick some
obvious examples) all deal with exactly this problem, quite successfully. 

How those questions are answered in each respective discipline --i.e. how the
practicioneers of that discipline develop tools and techniques to answer the
questions relevant to their field-- is much of what makes that discipline
challenging (and exciting). 

As to how such questions should be answered specifically in TC, I can only
refer you to the standard references on the topic, where the methods and
techniques developed to deal these questions are spell out in detail. 

Equally, and in exactly the same way, it is up to someone, anyone who wishes
to challenge the standard model to propose techniques for providing hard,
concrete data that supports their position.  But simply claiming that it is
"logical" that these scribes acted in one or another way is a --precisely--
meaningless statement. 

N

---

From: Hubert Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:42:14 -0700

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> this is *not* a nitpick (though I don't expect anyone to buy

Are their any books on TC and statistics or statistics in general,
that can be understood by someone who has been away from mathematics
(checkbooks and tax forms excepted)?  When I was a Biblical Studies 
major four semesters of Greek was a requirement but Statistics wasn't 
even recommended coursework.  I recognize the void in my education, but
where do I begin to fill it. 

-- 
--Huey Bahr
home: [email-masked]
office: [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:57:46 -0700

>where do I begin to fill it. 

By comparison, when I was going to college, it wasn't even *possible*
to take more than two religion courses, because I couldn't have met
all my requirements otherwise. (As it was, to complete a full
physics load and the liberal arts requirements, I had to take the
absolute minimum number of math courses required for a major.)

I've never seen a prob & stats book for TC. Indeed, if there is such
a thing, I'm sure it's been widely ignored. I wish there were such
a thing; it might help me determine the pathology of this sick
distribution I'm struggling with now.

I have done my best on my web page to begin addressing the issues.
Unfortunately, I am *not* a statistics expert (as I noted previously,
I spent most of my time in analysis, not statistics). And I'm rather
rusty. I'd suggest trying the web page, then asking me questions.
(Or maybe Nichael; from the sound of it, he may have more recent
training than I do.) If the questions make sense, I may be able to
improve the web page.

I have a book called "Probability Without Tears," but I didn't
like it much. If I find something better, I will let people know.

Wish I could do more for you. If it helps any, I will point out
that I am a mathematician first and a TCer second; there are a
lot of people out there who disapprove of my calls for mathematical
rigour.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: David Washburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:37:07 -0600 (MDT)

> Again, in part, obviously.  In total, no.

In total it can't be.  See below.

[snip]
> obvious examples) all deal with exactly this problem, quite successfully. 

But in those sciences there are ways to observe phenomena that are still 
going on: motion of planets and galaxies, cell and DNA behavior, behavior 
of particles when accelerated or split or whatever - with TC we can't do 
this, because we're dealing with history.  By definition, historical 
events such as the copying/production of a particular manuscript cannot 
be repeated, and if the event is far enough removed from us observers it 
can't be observed.  We have to try and make educated (sort of) guesses as 
to what was going through a scribe's mind at a particular time and place.

This brings me to my next point: the phenomena we observe to have 
happened may or may not fit any brand of logic.  We are dealing with the 
unpredictable nature and actions of various and sundry human minds in TC, 
i.e. the scribes.  What were they thinking?  What were their particular 
biases?  Did they try to step around those when copying?  Were some of 
them just air-heads?  In the case of some documents, like D or 11QPs(a), 
we end up using little more than the SWAG method.  Because of those 
unpredictability factors, the statement that we have to require logic and 
consistency in TC may or may not be accurate.

[snip]
> techniques developed to deal these questions are spell out in detail. 

But those "standard references" are based essentially on the same SWAG 
method.  Nobody from the beginnings of TC until the present can really 
say their reconstruction of scribal behavior is scientific.

> "logical" that these scribes acted in one or another way is a --precisely--

This cuts both ways, as I'm sure you already know.  The major claims of 
the "standard model" are that 1) it's the standard model, and 2) it's 
logical and consistent.  1) is meaningless, and 2) may or may not be a 
valid criterion by which to evaluate it.

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:34:04 -0400 (EDT)

David Washburn wrote:
>    ...  The major claims of 

No, the major claim of the Standard Model is that it is a very powerful
tool for explaining the available data.[*]  This is the _only_ 
(meaningful) criterion by which these matters can be judged.

When the competitors to a Standard Model can present a theory with
comparable or greater explanatory power, then they will be taken seriously. 
Until then, not.  This is how scholarship in these matters works.  And how
it has worked.  And how so far, by and large it has managed to do a damn
fine job. 

  [* This is true in TC as in any discipline.  This is, after all, how a 
     model becomes the Standard Model.]

N

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:33:03 -0700

>(meaningful) criterion by which these matters can be judged.

[ ... ] 

>     model becomes the Standard Model.]

This is *not* true. There are at least two instances of "standard models"
that do *not* explain the available data -- and those two are the
Standard Model itself (the one in nuclear physics) and the Standard
Model of the Big Bang.

Oh, I'm overstating here -- but has anyone observed how much patching
has gone into each? Can anyone here explain a Higgs Boson? Or an
inflation theory? Remember when all quarks were supposed to have
the same mass? And whoever heard of fractional charges....

I concede that I can't come up with a decent alternative to the Big
Bang, and I am simply not clever enough to offer alternatives to the
Standard Model. But in the latter case, in particular, the Standard
Model stands mostly because a certain physicist whose initials are
MGM proposed it.

And for those of you who don't believe in the Big Bang or quarks or
any such thing, just ignore us, we're talking scientific theory among
ourselves. :-)

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: David Washburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:23:45 -0600 (MDT)

> (meaningful) criterion by which these matters can be judged.

However, as you stated, it is a claim, not a fact.  As such, it is not 
good history/science to set it up as the plumbline for all other 
approaches.  

> comparable or greater explanatory power, then they will be taken seriously. 

The question then becomes one of who defines "comparable or greater 
explanatory power," all of which is after all based on varying 
presuppositions of one type or another, and how said definition is 
arrived at.  Wilbur Pickering presented a statistical-explanatory model 
many years ago to show that the most widely disseminated reading is most 
likely the original, a model that certainly appeared to have much greater 
explanatory power than the speculations of Hort and his successors.  I 
have yet to see a response that didn't resort to presuppositions as 
already defined by the "standard model".  His model may or may not be 
correct, but its explanatory power, like that of the "standard model," 
depends on a whale of a lot of presuppositions and arbitrary definitions.

> it has worked.  

This merely states the way things are, not necessarily the way they 
should be...

> And how so far, by and large it has managed to do a damn
> fine job. 

And this, of course, is purely a matter of opinion.

>      model becomes the Standard Model.]

And this is overly simplistic.

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 14:17:25 -0700

This is really an interesting discussion, but isn´t the whole thing a 
matter of *some* kind of *interpretation*? You know, the autographa has 
not yet been discovered! 

And if it *is* discovered in the future, who is to be the judge as to its 
"autographness"??

(Of course, I know that ye all have to work from within the science of 
TC.....)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Apr 1997 18:07:12 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> that can be understood by someone who has been away from mathematics?

I think any good course in Probability and Statistics will give you
what's needed.  For TC you won't need to work much with continuous
random variables like the Gaussian, beautiful as it may be, but the
discrete random variables used in TC still require understanding of
these elementary concepts:

	Probability of Events (and Conditional Events)
	Distributions
	Independence and Correlation
	Measures of central tendency and Variance
	Estimation
	Hypothesis Testing
	Choosing Sample Size
	Confidence levels and statistical significance
	Cluster Analysis (which is not found in elementary books)

You might get by without knowing Calculus if you just swallow
some cookbook methods, but your understanding would be handicapped.
You really need to understand logarithms and exponents to have a
chance at statistics.

When you grasp the concepts above you'll be 'way ahead of the pack.

Vincent Broman,  code D783 Bayside                       Email: [email-masked]
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA  92152-6222,  USA                          Phone: +1 619 553 1641
=== PGP protected mail preferred.  For public key finger [email-masked] ===