JAS said
To clarify a bit, I am not saying that we cannot know anything, so any crackpot idea is as good as any other idea. I am merely saying that we should be very aware of how much of our understanding is based on layers and layers of assumptions. One error in any of these layers can be minor and simply take an adjustment, or it can multiply into a catastrophic failure. One hopes that all or at least most of these assumptions have been established by as much careful thought and research as possible. It is not necessarily enough to concoct a theory that covers or seems to fit a series of available points; it must also account for alternative ideas and deal in some way with points of disagreement. Long established ideas gain some credibility from having endured, but even they can be overturned if new evidence comes forward or a better idea can be demonstrated. (The probability that such ideas come from dabblers in the field is not impossible, but is highly unlikely.) The test of that new idea is usually the scholarly community. It is all too easy to fall into the trap of certainty and confirmation bias. That is partly a function of how the human brain works, and the necessity of creating and retaining summary positions for complicated issues. But we should ever be mindful of the limitations of what we know and what we can know.
Well now if you’re going to be reasonable how can we possibly take you seriously?
The phrase “dunk the epigone” makes me smile.
Relevance is Projection. You can tell Secret Mark is phony precisely because it was exactly what we wanted to find. Same with Jesus’ Wife and First Century Mark. Too good to be true. Relevance is projection. The ancients didn’t think the way we think. Their concerns were other than ours even when we use the same words. You could almost make it a principle that you know you are on the right track with ancient writers when you find yourself the most baffled.
Stephen said
JAS said
To clarify a bit, I am not saying that we cannot know anything, so any crackpot idea is as good as any other idea. I am merely saying that we should be very aware of how much of our understanding is based on layers and layers of assumptions. One error in any of these layers can be minor and simply take an adjustment, or it can multiply into a catastrophic failure. One hopes that all or at least most of these assumptions have been established by as much careful thought and research as possible. It is not necessarily enough to concoct a theory that covers or seems to fit a series of available points; it must also account for alternative ideas and deal in some way with points of disagreement. Long established ideas gain some credibility from having endured, but even they can be overturned if new evidence comes forward or a better idea can be demonstrated. (The probability that such ideas come from dabblers in the field is not impossible, but is highly unlikely.) The test of that new idea is usually the scholarly community. It is all too easy to fall into the trap of certainty and confirmation bias. That is partly a function of how the human brain works, and the necessity of creating and retaining summary positions for complicated issues. But we should ever be mindful of the limitations of what we know and what we can know.
Well now if you’re going to be reasonable how can we possibly take you seriously?
The phrase “dunk the epigone” makes me smile.
Relevance is Projection. You can tell Secret Mark is phony precisely because it was exactly what we wanted to find. Same with Jesus’ Wife and First Century Mark. Too good to be true. Relevance is projection. The ancients didn’t think the way we think. Their concerns were other than ours even when we use the same words. You could almost make it a principle that you know you are on the right track with ancient writers when you find yourself the most baffled.
Personally, I was hoping to find a free annual pass to Wally World.
Imagine my disappointment.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)