"Eric Miller" wrote in message et...
"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote
A valid argument by induction, starting with no assumptions and simply
looking at the evidence, is:
It rained today. It rained yesterday. It rained the day before.
Therefore it
will rain tomorrow. Logically correct and consistent... and demonstrably
false (unless you live in Seattle).

But in the present discussion, your example doesn't examp. One, it's
not demonstrably false until it doesn't rain tomorrow (but will
Schroedinger's cat get wet insude the box? :-p) Two (related to
one), you're using past events to predict the future. That's not what
we're doing. We're using historical documents (and modern science) to
decide whether a reported event occurred or not.

You're missing the point.

It's irrelevant that past events are used to predict future ones, or that
the truth can't be determined until tomorrow.
What *is* important is that induction can be logically correct and
demonstrably false.
For that reason, induction can't exist in a vacuum, without other
confirmation.


RIGHT. But the situation we have here is NOT that the conclusion is
"logically correct and demonstrably false."


On the other hand, deduction cannot lead to such false conclusion, so
there's no need to confirmation... however, the conclusions that can be made
are limited without "seeding" it with starting premises... obtained from the
other types of logic.

HALF-RIGHT. The initial premises do not have to be obtained from
other types of logic. They can simply BE. They can also be incorrect
and/or artificially limiting. And that's my point. When you say,
"People don't rise from the dead, therefore Jesus didn't rise from the
dead," you are seeding your investigation with the conclusion you
expect to reach. When you get to the point of dealing with the
eyewitness evidence, you must force it to fit into the mold of Elvis
sightings. You are prevented by your initial assumptions from taking
it on its own merits.

If, on the other hand, you begin with, "PERHAPS Jesus really did rise
from the dead," you are permitting yourself to be drawn to that
conclusion - without requiring that that conclusion be reached.

In a nutshell, if we have:
(1) All planes have wings.
(2) The RV-6 is a plane.
(3) The RV-6 has wings.

Deduction lets us infer (3) from (1) and (2).
Induction allows us conclude (1) from (2) and (3).
Abduction gives us (2) from (1) and (3).

Your example doesn't examp. All three statements are independently
verifiable as true.

Irrelevant, I was simply clarifying the differences between the 3 types of
logic, I could use the nonsense (and false) statements:
(1) All ducks are blue.
(2) My house is a duck.
(3) My house is blue.
and it would still be logically correct, if harder to understand.


Ok, I see what you meant by getting (2) from (1) and (3), but it still
does not follow that I'm using abduction to say that "all other
reasonable materialist explanations having proved unsatisfactory to
account for the evidence, the remaining explanation - though
supernatural - is most likely true." It's simple process of
elimination.



There's a big difference between concluding a premise is wrong in advance
and saying that it's not true until demonstrated otherwise. It's the
difference between a closed and an open mind.

The problem is in your initial assumption that it is false. That is
in fact a closed mind. The open mind is in assuming that it may be
either true or false. The difference may seem slight, but it is huge.
Maybe this is a stretch, but think about Schroedinger's cat. (Used
to demonstrate the principle that you can't tell whether a particular
proton has decayed or not without measuring it.) Cat's in a box. At
some unknown time, the cat will be fed (nicer way of illustrating it
than the original, right?).

So - right now - is the cat in the box hungry or not? You'd say that
the cat is hungry unless proven full. I say that we can't tell
without opening the box. Big difference. I say that I don't know
whether the cat is hungry or not. But you say that you DO know, and
without opening the box! You don't even have to open the box, since a
hungry cat suits you just fine. But if you do open the box and don't
see any food, you can say that that the cat is hungry. If I suggest
that the cat ate the food, you can say that well, it's fine for me to
believe that, but as far as you're concerned the cat is hungry since
you don't see any food.

And if the box and cat happen to be set up so that the cat eats all
the food the instant it appears, and no food is dispensed if the box
is open, then you'll NEVER have the proof you demand. Your assumption
that the cat is hungry unless proven fed - that is, unless you see it
eating, an impossible situation - will never be met. The cat may be
very well fed indeed, but you'll never believe it.

To pull the other thread in he Regarding Elvis sightings, I've got
two responses. One. How many Elvis fans are willing to be tortured
and killed rather than recant their belief that Elvis is still alive?
(My guess, zero.)

If you guess zero, then you don't know human nature very well.
If you and I can even *imagine* something, like "penile spoon piercing" or
"willing to be tortured and killed for the belief that Elvis is alive" then:
1) there are people that get off on it, and
2) there's a magazine, newsgroup and scores of web pages devoted to it

I'll take your word on the spoon thing. ;-) Show me one person who
has willingly died for what they KNEW to be a lie, when they could
have lived simply by recanting. In the Middle Ages, people would
falsely confess to practicing witchcraft in order to *avoid* torture.
In contrast, the first followers of Jesus were beaten and threatened
with worse if they didn't just shut up and go back to their nets (see
Acts) but did they? Nope. If they were in on the conspiracy - and if
not Peter and James then who? - why in the world would they not simply
have said, "Ok, guys, the jig is up. Back to the boats." No
conspiracy theory I've ever seen fits the available evidence.


Two. Do you think it would be possible to
reconstruct an accurate account of Elvis' life today solely by
interviewing living witnesses, or by reference to the recorded
recollections of recently-deceased witnesses such as Sam Phillips?
(My guess, almost certainly.)

I'd guess so too, but that's not even close to a fair comparison.
Elvis covered more ground, saw (or was seen by) more people, and had the
benefit of mass media.
He was literally, to steal the famous quote, "more popular than Jesus (in
his day)," both in raw numbers and percentage of the world population.

Leave out the radio and television audience. Just deal with people
who saw him live and in person. That's a much smaller number.

Further, Elvis died in 1977 (if you belief he's dead). The earliest gospel
wasn't written for at least 40 years after Jesus' death, so by the same
standards, Elvis's first gospel can't be written for another 14 years,
minimum.

Ah, but Mark was based on earlier sources, remember? Paul wrote in
the mid-50's - *today* in "Elvis years." Acts was written in the late
50's or early 60's, and Luke not ony traveled with Paul but
interviewed everyone he could get his hands on. The point is, the
*earliest* accounts of Jesus include the conviction - not the faint
hope, but the core conviction - that Jesus had risen from the dead.
The authorities at the time had EVERY incentive to prove that claim
false. That claim was the basis for their persecution of the apostles
from Day One. It was a major embarassment. If anyone had means and
motive to uncover a conspiracy to fake Jesus' resurrection, it was the
political and religious leaders in Jerusalem in the weeks immediately
following Easter!


Is there room for me in Rock & Roll Heaven (I hear they have a helluva
band ) ?


Depends. What do you play? I'm only passing fair as a rhythm
guitarist and backing vocalist, but I don't believe I have to pass an
audition. I've got a backstage pass. For all that, I'm looking
forward to having enough time to really practice. :-)

That reminds me, though - what defines a "good" person? I think you
(maybe another poster?) opined that you'd go to some sort of pleasant
reward if you were a "good" person. My question is, what's "good?"
There's a spectrum, right? Chucky Manson gets the Down Elevator. The
Pearly Gates jump off their hinges for Ma Theresa. The ends of the
spectrum are easy; let's move in a bit.

What about the gal who only killed two people by hacking them with an
axe, and didn't even write on the walls in their blood? Naw, into the
elevator with Chuck. But what if it was her abusive two-timing
boyfriend and the homewrecker he was in bed with? Welll, maybe...
And back on the other end, how about the saintly Father Mulroney, who
spent decades helping the poor children of the inner city, teaching
them to read...teaching some of the boys considerably more. Welll,
maybe.....

Where do you draw the line? At some point, you get a whole bunch of
average schmoes like you and me, whose lives are a mixed bag of good
and bad thoughts and deeds. Who gets in the elevator with Chucky, who
goes marching in with the saints? How can you be sure which group
you're in? How good is good enough?

On the cosmic grading curve, I know what's an F - no plans to do that.
I see what's an A - no possibility of that, for sure. B is probably
too much to hope for, if I'm honest with myself. So where's the
cutoff between D and C? That's the - excuse the expression - burning
question.

Corrie