Tagging Suggestions / thoughts in L8 Library
Comments
-
MJ. Smith said:
MY STRONGLY HELD OPINION
In Bible study, as in all study, we use all our reasoning tools - fallacy identification, deductive logic, inductive logic, abductive logic (rarely but atheists tend to overuse), informal logic, conductive logic - picking the appropriate tool for the set of propositions we have accumulated. Yes, I am a big fan of dialogic logic and consider it a very interesting approach to Bible study.
Not to intrude too much, but inductive always has deductive in the background, possibly unstated but necessary.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I agreed:
“In actual practice, though any one method of study may be characteristically deductive or inductive, nevertheless nothing is purely deductive, and nothing is purely inductive, but they are actually used to serve each other." (Emphasis mine)
MJ said:
MY STRONGLY HELD OPINION
“In Bible study, as in all study, we use all our reasoning tools - fallacy identification, deductive logic, inductive logic, abductive logic (rarely but atheists tend to overuse), informal logic, conductive logic - picking the appropriate tool for the set of propositions we have accumulated. Yes, I am a big fan of dialogic logic and consider it a very interesting approach to Bible study.”
Denise said:
“Not to intrude too much, but inductive always has deductive in the background, possibly unstated but necessary.”
I’m not the sharpest pencil in the box, but can someone tell me where we are disagreeing?
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Cynthia in Florida said:
I agreed:
“In actual practice, though any one method of study may be characteristically deductive or inductive, nevertheless nothing is purely deductive, and nothing is purely inductive, but they are actually used to serve each other." (Emphasis mine)
MJ said:
MY STRONGLY HELD OPINION
“In Bible study, as in all study, we use all our reasoning tools - fallacy identification, deductive logic, inductive logic, abductive logic (rarely but atheists tend to overuse), informal logic, conductive logic - picking the appropriate tool for the set of propositions we have accumulated. Yes, I am a big fan of dialogic logic and consider it a very interesting approach to Bible study.”
Denise said:
“Not to intrude too much, but inductive always has deductive in the background, possibly unstated but necessary.”
I’m not the sharpest pencil in the box, but can someone tell me where we are disagreeing?
I suspect the issue is with the unsharpened pencils, where the above noted "agreed on", or "facts" are not actually recognized as propositions, as one moves into inductive study. You're pencil is plenty sharp.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
but inductive always has deductive in the background, possibly unstated but necessary.
I agree. Perhaps, if it were stated more often, the false dichotomy statements as given above would become less frequent.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Denise said:Cynthia in Florida said:
I agreed:
“In actual practice, though any one method of study may be characteristically deductive or inductive, nevertheless nothing is purely deductive, and nothing is purely inductive, but they are actually used to serve each other." (Emphasis mine)
MJ said:
MY STRONGLY HELD OPINION
“In Bible study, as in all study, we use all our reasoning tools - fallacy identification, deductive logic, inductive logic, abductive logic (rarely but atheists tend to overuse), informal logic, conductive logic - picking the appropriate tool for the set of propositions we have accumulated. Yes, I am a big fan of dialogic logic and consider it a very interesting approach to Bible study.”
Denise said:
“Not to intrude too much, but inductive always has deductive in the background, possibly unstated but necessary.”
I’m not the sharpest pencil in the box, but can someone tell me where we are disagreeing?
I suspect the issue is with the unsharpened pencils, where the above noted "agreed on", or "facts" are not actually recognized as propositions, as one moves into inductive study. You're pencil is plenty sharp.
Your wittiness always makes me laugh out loud!!
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Cynthia in Florida said:
but can someone tell me where we are disagreeing?
I am not at all sure we have a disagreement. I was initially responding to your statement:
Cynthia in Florida said:However, there are also books out there that show how to do a topical study outside of a book study. I tend to not favor this type too much, as I find it more deductive than inductive.
Because I did not, and still do not, understand the "why" of your statement for two reasons: (a) using the bounds of a book study and (b) identifying it as more deductive than inductive as though that were a flaw. However, you clarified:
Cynthia in Florida said:what is alleged as an inductive topical study within the context of an inductive book study is often not inductive but deductive, which I don't particularly like.
Which I take to mean that you dislike having a deductive study posing as a inductive study - a reasonable concern. Which is, from my perspective, the end of my discussion with you. I see no reason to push further with you whether or not the inductive/deductive dichotomy in Bible study is appropriate - it is clearly the terminology useful to you.
At this point another voice entered the conversation:
Justin Gatlin said:I think the terminology "inductive Bible study" may come from that sense, where you begin with a specific example and see if that principle carries over to other texts (working up), while deductive begins with axioms (whether the categories of systematics, creeds or whatever) and then work down.. . . In mathematics (my secular training) inductive does not mean that something is probably, but not necessarily true.
The remainder of my posts are responding to Justin, first to clarify the distinction between "mathematical induction" (in some of its flavors) and inductive logic and second, to establish the historical grounds upon which my annoyance with the inductive vs. deductive dichotomy is founded. I readily assume that Justin has more knowledge of mathematical logic than I which is why I relied on an outside subject-matter-expert to reinforce that math also makes the distinction of inductive logic being based on probabilities rather than the certainties of deductive logic. His response, while accurate, made me recognize that my discussion with Justin needed to start another step back if we were to be "on the same page" and understand each other. My long post was directed to Justin for that purpose, not at you, Cynthia.
BTW your posts over the years have consistently made me think you underestimate yourself. At times you are one of the most astute people in the forums.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ: Got it! Thanks for sharpening my pencil!
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Hi Justin:
I agree with what you are trying to convey. Inductive Bible study is valid, and as someone mentioned it has deductive in the background.
Simple example:
Jesus illustrating the Saducees. Jesus quoted Scripture (The correct accepted Point of start) in the particular case of God being characterized as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
Based on the particular case found intertextually in the Bible about God being the God of Patriarchs, the inference is that God is God of the living (even after death), otherwise, the names of the Patriarchs would be irrelevant.
I do agree with MJ that a valid true initial point should be the base for further study / discussion, but my disagreement is that such departure point may not be a manmade theological construct our of synch with revealed truth or the character and nature of God, or an addition to the Scripture (as in long formula in Mt 28:19), because it is not properly aligned with the evidence (both internal and external).
I do think topical inductive (with deductive lurking in the background) is important in order to comply with good standards, and properly evaluate doctrine.
Diachronic study and intertextuality are important, inductive analysis of the particular relevant cases are in order to assure COMPREHENSIVENESS, and CONSISTENCY, as explained above, and the maximum starting point has to jibe neatly in COHERENCE with the whole revelation of God.
The whole bit hast to be CONGRUENT with God's reality because that is true reality, we are in a fallen one trying to transfer to His amazing Kingdom of light through His grace.
Thanks to all for the input on this topic which to me is very important, despite the disagreements (maybe perceived only), I found the exchange edifying and educative.
Here is an example of an author and power user on how my tag is used for particular collections:
0 -
Cynthia:
Cynthia in Florida said:"Methods of Reasoning Compared to Methods of Studying
Thanks for sharing.
I do not think the dichotomy is valid.
I was looking up information for language learning. I tried to focus it through semantic domains. It is a whole world. Very interesting, and with a lot of issues that are unresolved.
A part linguistic theory holds that concepts / abstractions are independent of the person. Now conclusions about that are changing.
So you have Language as a communication system, (not just a structural one), in which we need to see the worldview underneath the communication symbols.
So in theory there is a need to have proper philosophical, theological and linguistic understanding to properly understand a communication.
This is exciting and promising in my view.
Dr. Ward explained to me in an exchange in the comments to one of his articles in Logos talk, that worldview is not tied to a particular langue per se.
Within a particular language, there can be a diverse amount of worldviews.
So that got me thinking about the culture of the Kingdom of God. Notice how persons in the Bible with the anointing of the Holy Spirit, have different thoughts, abstractions, understanding, that they transmit using the cultural symbolic system available to them in their particular context.
So this is why Puritans insist on holiness as prerequisite for proper understanding, just as Charismatics insist on Holy Spirit anointing for correct illumination.
Bible study begins there, not on a method. The method is a fit aid, reason is a fit aid to the Holy Spirit guidance.
Now we all must understand that the Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself. If something was told, uttered, under His anointing in the Bible, it cannot be contradicted by something else.
So reasoning and study do have a common "proper system with best practices" from our own point of view (human), but we need the anointing of the Holy Spirit to really get to the key of it all: apprehend the true reality of God, which is supernatural to us, because we are living in a fallen region of God's Kingdom.
We are called to aid in the redemption ministry to get this Kingdom back to normal again (Jesus will set things right eventually), but we are to go find and help the true sheep get in the fold before that happens.
So in our cultural context to give an example, we have money.
Money is a cultural artifact, it has a commonly agreed value, which is used for a practical purpose (exchange in a free market).
So we can think of God's revelation in the form of the Bible:
A cultural artifact (given to a set apart people carriers of the Oracles), which is (or should be) valued as the rule of belief and practice, and that should be followed (as a map), to God's reality...
To enter the New Covenant (for us in our era), we need to listen / understand / repent / confess sins to God/ confess Jesus as Lord and Savior / baptize as per Acts 2:38/ receive the Holy Spirit / walk humbly with God doing as He commands / and engaged directly or indirectly in the ministry of redemption, looking for the lost, and doing good works (individual and collective) in thankfulness for a free gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
check background in the above. Talks of the Person experiencing and reflecting (self), others in the culture (recipients of the communication effort), and entities (events, persons, etc.) object of the commo effort.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/13278796.pdf
Very interesting for an overview. Talks about the need to add elements to the sole structural language grammar focus, also about discourse analysis and its implications for correct meaning acquisition, etc.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Cynthia:
Cynthia in Florida said:"Methods of Reasoning Compared to Methods of Studying
Thanks for sharing.
I do not think the dichotomy is valid.
I was looking up information for language learning. I tried to focus it through semantic domains. It is a whole world. Very interesting, and with a lot of issues that are unresolved.
A part linguistic theory holds that concepts / abstractions are independent of the person. Now conclusions about that are changing.
So you have Language as a communication system, (not just a structural one), in which we need to see the worldview underneath the communication symbols...
Hello Hamilton:
We have an expression in the States that says, "You are talking out of both sides of your mouth." Since you said that English is your second language, let me make sure you understand the definition in this context here. It is an idiom that means you are speaking contradictory things.
In the irony of all ironies, the same website I used for YEARS as a classical education home schooling parent, which is where I got that quote from, is the VERY SAME website page and website article you directed me to in order to show me that I am "uninformed."
I'm honestly saying this in love, but a part of me is wondering if you are debating just to debate, which for me is energy I'm just not willing to expend. If you're looking for a discussion, then great. As I offered earlier, we can have those off the board. But you are now confusing yourself, I think!
On the side, remember that I am an inductive Bible study student, teacher, and writer, so I'm obviously not arguing AGAINST it. However, at this point, all this is just "chatter" to me, so I'm going to gracefully (and I pray it is received as such), bow out of this conversation as I really do believe that it not only hijacked the thread but also really is more theological in nature as opposed to Logos Bible Software focused.
Praying God's very best for you!
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
I do agree with MJ that a valid true initial point should be the base for further study / discussion, but my disagreement is that such departure point may not be a manmade theological construct our of synch with revealed truth or the character and nature of God, or an addition to the Scripture (as in long formula in Mt 28:19), because it is not properly aligned with the evidence (both internal and external).
Er. ah.. step back a bit please. Validity is an attribute of an argument "Validity (logic) In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false." and your disagreement is against something I did not and would not say. However, because we are reading and reasoning in some language, we are, by definition, using human constructs.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
By all means Cynthia, you are free to do as you see fit.
I apologize if I offended you. I did not intend it to be offensive. I just was not sure of your view of topical inductive study, which has a deductive part.
0 -
Copy that MJ. I am not as sophisticated as you in the details of logic.
What I tried to communicate is that in deductive usually one moves from the general to the particular.
A premise assumed to be true is mentioned in an excerpt that you agree with. From there you work to a conclusion.
What I object is that to me an unchecked premise (against the relevant evidence available for possibility) does not qualify as a suitable premise.
Example: some groups affirm that Jesus was the product of one of Mary's ovum, with a miraculous working of the H.S. on that ovum.
Is this a valid premise?
With the evidence available, it does not:
The Lamb for atonement had to be without defect. Fallen nature by default does not qualify.
A being with part nature of a fallen kind could not have the H. S. descend and remain John 1:32, because most likely would die (a lot of the rituals of the Priests in the OT, was to not die in the presence of the Holy Spirit).
No fallen human could have the H.S. remain because Jesus had not died to pay the price.
Adam was tested in an unfallen status, and failed. It would be unjust to have Jesus be tested in a state different from that of pre fall Adam.
Etc. The original creation was the unfallen, so the standard and prototype for correct status is that.
The result of working from a wrong premise, is that it can take to wrong conclusions. Some groups thinking that indeed Mary's ovum was involved in Jesus, then may come up with the idea that fallen creatures can achieve deity status having self-existence like God has.
That would be a wrong conclusion. Aseity is a noncummunicable attribute of God, and what makes Him precisely worthy of worship.
It seems that some gnostic christian groups really believe that the deification (as achieving self-existence) is possible, I do not want to think that part of that idea came about because of the idea of Mary's ovum being involved in Jesus conception.
Created creatures have no self-existence. Their existence depends on God's grace, power and mercy.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
A premise assumed to be true is mentioned in an excerpt that you agree with. From there you work to a conclusion.
What I object is that to me an unchecked premise . . .
A false premise is equally possible and equally damaging in both deductive and inductive logics. Different genres in scripture provide propositions of different flavors ... some more appropriately used for deductive logic; others more appropriately used for inductive logic; law section propositions likely are best used for abductive logic; others require informal logic or fallacy analysis or conductive logic . . .What you appear to be arguing is "garbage in, garbage out" which no one disagrees with. My point is very simple: deductive logic is logic to certainty; inductive logic is always to probability. Therefore, I am perpetually puzzled by statements that imply inductive study is in some way a corrective to deductive study as "deductive study" is usually defined in a way to create a straw horse. Your term "manmade theological construct", I would describe "taking as a premise, the conclusion of previous study" ... without taking advantage of previous work, we can spend 80 years coming to exactly the same conclusions with absolutely no growth in understanding, in fact without the possibility of growth. For me, my study is always built upon my previous studies and my current knowledge.
Fortunately, intuitional logic is usually quite reliable ... we depend upon the results of our reasoning to survive. Knowing the formal terms does not guarantee solid logic ... which is why in a Bible study it is often some self-effacing, elderly high-school dropout who is most insightful. At least that is true in my experience.
Like Cynthia, I think this is a good point to drop out, beyond reading any responses. You can contact me through Faithlife, if you feel it necessary to continue.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Copy that MJ. I am not as sophisticated as you in the details of logic.
Hamilton, you have premises on both sides of your argument. You're going in circles. You'd do better to take a page from the early believers. Just believe in Diety. You're done.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
MJ, Denise, Cynthia:
Believe it or not I find the exchange very interesting. I do know that logic is important. It just baffles me that after 2000 years of theology in the making, there is not a resource that:
List most important propositional truths of the Bible.
Tackles head on the examples I have given, and clearly show how deductive and inductive methods would apply to try to get to valid truths.
I would think that author John Frame works in a manner that he tries to very clearly delineate the philosophical and theological implications of subjects.
I guess I have to take time to read more of his works.
Worship, catechesis, systematics, ethics, ministry, discipleship, lawlessness, deification, etc. are important, and I think should have more interdisciplinary treatment, to clearly articulate principles and further research needed themes.
Thanks for your time and patience.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
List most important propositional truths of the Bible.
Read the history of propositional truths in theology. Read a bit of logic to understand that propositional logic is the equivalent of limiting yourself to integer arithmetic. Then read some predicate logic to extend your tool set. You should then be able to answer your own question.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
