Tagging Suggestions / thoughts in L8 Library
Comments
-
Cynthia:
The S word is a little strong. You are uninformed which is different...
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/inductive_and_deductive_bible_studies.php
Blessings.
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Cynthia:
The S word is a little strong. You are uninformed which is different...
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/inductive_and_deductive_bible_studies.php
Blessings.
Hamilton: it’s in jest my friend.
And so, about tagging... anyone have any other methods of tagging, I’d love to hear them. Please?! ANYONE?
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Hamilton Ramos said:
Cynthia:
The S word is a little strong. You are uninformed which is different...
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/inductive_and_deductive_bible_studies.php
Blessings.
Hamilton, in our neck of the woods, we're all stupid, but never uninformed (an insult). In the grand pecking order of life, introducing someone to the joys of the Diety is at the top ... what Cynthia excels at.
As regards tagging, I combine tagging (every single volume) with altering the titles to achieve sorts I prefer. FL, however, is now disregarding user titles (web/mobile) and I've been disregarding FL.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
MJ. Smith said: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.
Cynthia in Florida, excuse the logician in me for butting in, especially since I've long since figured out "inductive" doesn't mean "inductive" in this context but deductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is true. Inductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is probably but not necessarily true. So love your inductive but don't knock my deductive, please
And if anyone can tell me the historical reason that for a subset of Christians "deductive" came to mean starting with facts outside the Bible and "inductive" was taken to mean starting with facts inside the Bible, I would love to hear it because the term "inductive Bible study" drives me nuts.
In mathematics (my secular training) inductive does not mean that something is probably, but not necessarily true. It means that you show that (1) the proposition is true for some number and (2) demonstrate that if it is true for a variable n, then it is also true for n+1. So you start from the specific example and then show that the example implies the whole.
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 real life, of course, we always do both intermingled. Like in math, induction refers to a specific technique, but really depends on the insight of the other approach.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Cynthia,
Getting back to tagging:
I have tagged all my books. I did much of the tagging before FL expanded their "types" on certain resources such as Systematic Theologies etc. I use an abbreviated list from the one that Bruce provided. I combine tags and ratings to create collections of books that I want to populate for various categories such as background and exegesis. The formula is: tag:exegesis AND rating >2... or whatever I decide. This allows me to filter to those resources I find most useful. I can still run a search on the tag to get all the books in that category if I want. I find it helpful to target my guides and search so as to not get overwhelmed. You can create similar collections using the "type" of resource provided by FL.
Another advantage to tagging all my resources is when new books arrive, especially those temporary ones with FL Connect, I can identify them because they are the ones not tagged. I do not tag any books that will be expiring the next month.
Whatever system you decide to use, you are well on your way to getting targeted results from your guides and searches.
I truly respect your calling to teach God's Word... keep it up.
0 -
John Fidel said:
I do not tag any books that will be expiring the next month.
This is a good point to mention. I too don't tag any temporary resources. I have done this in the past but regretted after I purchased it at at later time but forgot I had previously tagged the. Then I think that the resource didn't download when I check to see what resources have not been tagged. So I just make it my rule not to tag books that I don't own.
Another example of this is previously tagging resources as "cloud" when that was offered for a while but later they don't show up as untagged when I decided to purchase them.
Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God
0 -
Denise said:
In the grand pecking order of life, introducing someone to the joys of the Diety is at the top ... what Cynthia excels at.
Denise: I trust you know, from our years of conversing, how much respect I have for you. Therefore, this truly touches my heart. I’m humbled and honored. Thank you!
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
John Fidel said:
Cynthia,
Getting back to tagging:
I have tagged all my books. I did much of the tagging before FL expanded their "types" on certain resources such as Systematic Theologies etc. I use an abbreviated list from the one that Bruce provided. I combine tags and ratings to create collections of books that I want to populate for various categories such as background and exegesis. The formula is: tag:exegesis AND rating >2... or whatever I decide. This allows me to filter to those resources I find most useful. I can still run a search on the tag to get all the books in that category if I want. I find it helpful to target my guides and search so as to not get overwhelmed. You can create similar collections using the "type" of resource provided by FL.
Another advantage to tagging all my resources is when new books arrive, especially those temporary ones with FL Connect, I can identify them because they are the ones not tagged. I do not tag any books that will be expiring the next month.
Whatever system you decide to use, you are well on your way to getting targeted results from your guides and searches.
I truly respect your calling to teach God's Word... keep it up.
Hello John: First, thank you for your kind words. Secondly, I am incredibly interested in your system as mentioned above. It’s a little fuzzy for me, but I think I understand it. Any chance you could show me a few screen shots? I m particularly interested in it’s ability to “help target my guides and searches so as to not get overwhelmed...”.
Thanks in advance!
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Hi Cynthia,
Here is a post from 2016 that links to a pdf I created that describes the process. Mine system is more elaborate, but I think you will get the idea. If you have more questions I will be at a computer that has Logos on it later this evening and can post some screen shots using L8.
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/101279.aspx
Once your have your monographs tagged and/or in collections, you then add those collections to a Passage Guide and Topic Guide so they can be utilized to provide you information from those collections based on your pericope or topic you are studying.
0 -
Sorry Cynthia for not catching that. Now with political correctness some words are better treated with caution.
Tagging is a lot of work for those that grew a library without properly tagging as resources were added.
I wish there was an easier way to do it.
At one time I thought of tagging all resources that had "subject or thematic" index, so I could search in them terms to get ideas by the other entries in the index near the term, but that proved hard due to the amount of books and the different subjects.
Then the Logos pro team had a list of preferred resources they always go to, and that was another good idea. I did try to add some of my preferred resources to the ones they listed, but without a rule, it is hard to maintain the collection.
The use you want to give to your L8 library will influence the tagging.
John Fallahee (learnlogos) has an interesting webinar for students of seminary. He advises to have crystal clear understanding of certain topics for proper preparedness for ministry so to speak:
There are probably more. I do not tag. I just put in the rule box the word and search in the collection. Example I write "counseling" in the rule box and then look for the particular topic. Not very scientific but adequate for my needs.
Hope this sparks some ideas for you.
0 -
Denise:
I was at no time implying that uninformed meant in all generally.
Because of the posting Cynthia did I also thought she had not clear the relation of Deductive and inductive, and particularly topical inductive.
I might have misperceived the situation. If you see I was very particular to the article I cited for her to explore and communicate in a manner we would all understand due to the common meaning derived from what was articulated there.
By coincidence it has the dog you so much cherish that MJ pulls out at times. (pure coincidence).
So no offense intended, and I was just shocked to read the S word in Cynthia's post (remember L1 of mine is not En).
"joys of Diety"... I assume is a typo, since I did not find it as an idiomatic expression.
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:
In mathematics (my secular training) inductive does not mean that something is probably, but not necessarily true. It means that you show that (1) the proposition is true for some number and (2) demonstrate that if it is true for a variable n, then it is also true for n+1. So you start from the specific example and then show that the example implies the whole.
Note that you used the word "implies" rather than "proves" which is exactly my point.
From the Minnesota State math department:
Yes, I am aware that mathematics extends the meaning of inductive logic ... but that is generally beyond the math I have taken. "well-founded relations induction" is the only extension I can even recall a name for.
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 -
One practice I have is to tag every book I finish with 2 separate tags. 1. Completed 2. the year I read it.
This enables me to find a particular thought or phrase in any book I've read. And enables me to see what books I've read each year.
0 -
John Fidel said:
Hi Cynthia,
Here is a post from 2016 that links to a pdf I created that describes the process. Mine system is more elaborate, but I think you will get the idea. If you have more questions I will be at a computer that has Logos on it later this evening and can post some screen shots using L8.
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/101279.aspx
Once your have your monographs tagged and/or in collections, you then add those collections to a Passage Guide and Topic Guide so they can be utilized to provide you information from those collections based on your pericope or topic you are studying.
Hello John: So I went through this and as it currently applies to my set up, I’ve already done that. (without tagged resources, of course). I think, perhaps, that because I was always so flustered with L7, I never really got around to utilizing the customizations of the PG and TG. This is something I definitely want to spend more time on now. I realize it will take a while, but I’ll get going on it and perhaps by the time I’m 80, it will be finished! LOL
Thanks again for your help.
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Note that you used the word "implies" rather than "proves" which is exactly my point.
From the Minnesota State math department
Yes, I am aware that mathematics extends the meaning of inductive logic ... but that is generally beyond the math I have taken. "well-founded relations induction" is the only extension I can even recall a name for.
Apologies to Cynthia for derailing this thread. I just want to defend "inductive Bible study" as a legitimate term.
I was not using the word implies in the loose sense of "suggests." Mathematical induction is a formal method of proof that shows that if the base case is true, all forms will be true. Once you show the base case is true, all others must also be true. My point is quite narrowly that your misgivings about the terminology "inductive Bible study" are not entirely well-founded. The idea of forming a hypothesis from a pattern (your use of the term), then taking a specific example, and extending it by careful argument is not an unprecedented use of the term. Inductive proofs are kind of complicated by the nature of the case, but here is an example I found a graphic for (albeit with some unfortunate typos, the math is valid):
On the subject of tagging the 17k resources in my library, the thought overwhelms me. I like the models given in this thread, but I especially like the ability to pull up all the books with no tags in the new library, so I can work my way through methodically, without feeling like I need to complete it all right now.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:MJ. Smith said:
Note that you used the word "implies" rather than "proves" which is exactly my point.
From the Minnesota State math department
Yes, I am aware that mathematics extends the meaning of inductive logic ... but that is generally beyond the math I have taken. "well-founded relations induction" is the only extension I can even recall a name for.
Apologies to Cynthia for derailing this thread. I just want to defend "inductive Bible study" as a legitimate term.
I was not using the word implies in the loose sense of "suggests." Mathematical induction is a formal method of proof that shows that if the base case is true, all forms will be true. Once you show the base case is true, all others must also be true. My point is quite narrowly that your misgivings about the terminology "inductive Bible study" are not entirely well-founded. The idea of forming a hypothesis from a pattern (your use of the term), then taking a specific example, and extending it by careful argument is not an unprecedented use of the term. Inductive proofs are kind of complicated by the nature of the case, but here is an example I found a graphic for (albeit with some unfortunate typos, the math is valid):On the subject of tagging the 17k resources in my library, the thought overwhelms me. I like the models given in this thread, but I especially like the ability to pull up all the books with no tags in the new library, so I can work my way through methodically, without feeling like I need to complete it all right now.
Hello Justin: (and others)
I have been trying to stay out of this discussion because the minute you start bringing in examples like this, sadly, I have no response. I stink at math. I mean...I STINK at math, so what I'm seeing above makes no sense to me. Nevertheless, I do know that as a former home school parent, a popular approach to home schooling is called "The Trivium" which is a classical education based on the grammar stage, the dialectic (logic) stage, and the rhetoric stage. Below is a snippet from the Trivium Pursuit website that, from my time of study and teaching, I have always understood to be true:
"Methods of Reasoning Compared to Methods of Studying
A method is a regular way or manner of proceeding with or of accomplishing something. We must make a distinction between a method of reasoning to conclusions, and a method for studying a book or a subject.
For example, consider the inductive and deductive methods for studying a language:
Deductive language learning involves memorizing the various parts and categories of a foreign language and learning how to fit it all together and to us it. In other words, it begins with certain accepted principles of the language, then deduces the language as a whole from the correct combination of the parts and principles.
Inductive language learning involves reading passages in a foreign language, then picking it apart and learning what the parts mean. In other words, it begins with the language as a whole properly connected in all of its parts and principles, then figures out certain parts and principles of the language.
As you can see, we aren't actually talking about a method of reasoning so much as we are talking about a method of approaching a subject.
In the deductive method of study, we take for granted the work which others before us have done in identifying and categorizing various parts and their relationships of language (or any other subject), and we use this to develop our understanding of the whole system and to generate true examples of the language (or any other subject).
In the inductive method of study, what was taken for granted in the deductive method is here our primary work. We move from the given true examples of the language (or any other subject) and we break it down into its parts and relationships and thereby develop our understanding of the whole system
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)
You can read the entire article, which speaks about the connection between deductive and inductive reasoning and the deductive and inductive method of Bible study, here at http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/inductive_and_deductive_bible_studies.php
Justin: Okay, I have about 5600 resources and I thought that to be a massive undertaking. I don't know that I would even consider tagging 17,000 resources! If anyone knows a way to tag resources in groups that might make it go faster for me, please share.
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Talking out loud here...
I actually found out how to tag resources in groups, but I would love to hear your process on how you go about tagging. In other words, I'm not asking for WHAT you tag, or even tag titles, but what is your process. Do you search through a filter and then tag those in groups, do you open each individual title and tag that title? What is your actual PROCESS for tagging? Thanks in advance.
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
Cynthia in Florida said:
Talking out loud here...
I actually found out how to tag resources in groups, but I would love to hear your process on how you go about tagging. In other words, I'm not asking for WHAT you tag, or even tag titles, but what is your process. Do you search through a filter and then tag those in groups, do you open each individual title and tag that title? What is your actual PROCESS for tagging? Thanks in advance.
Presuming a group of books, I first tag them all as 'New' so I don't loose them in the process.
Then I apply global tags (eg which platform has the resource)
Then one by one, I go down the filtered 'new' list, tag and edit the titles for easier use.
Finally, I remove the 'new' tag. At which point they all swim away, to say hello to all their friends (typically mixed with updates, etc).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:
I was not using the word implies in the loose sense of "suggests." Mathematical induction is a formal method of proof that shows that if the base case is true, all forms will be true. Once you show the base case is true, all others must also be true. My point is quite narrowly that your misgivings about the terminology "inductive Bible study" are not entirely well-founded. The idea of forming a hypothesis from a pattern (your use of the term), then taking a specific example, and extending it by careful argument is not an unprecedented use of the term. Inductive proofs are kind of complicated by the nature of the case, but here is an example I found a graphic for (albeit with some unfortunate typos, the math is valid):
You still aren't quite understanding my position. If you're familiar with the development of the inductive method, it was developed out of a distrust of the deductive method. This distrust was based on the perception that the deductive method was based outside the text while the inductive method could be based inside the text. This reasoning was hogwash ... which I recognize because I have bottle fed several runts from sows' litters. Whether the initial propositions come from the text or from outside the text is a question completely independent of whether one applies inductive or deductive logic to the propositions. The difference in the types of logic is the certainty of the conclusion.
I am comfortable applying mathematical induction in the fields of model verification and natural language processing. However, my Coursera instructor for Mathematical logic, a Stanford professor math professor, insisted on the distinction I have made. You are correct that the term "mathematical induction" is not the same as inductive logic. In my experience, narrow as it is, mathematical induction re: natural numbers utilizes deductive logic. But my point is regarding Bible study and is in response to statements such as the following which misrepresent the application of the two types of logic:
[quote]"Deductive Bible study, then, is simply taking a general statement and then going to Scripture to find details that support (or disprove) it. Inductive Bible study does the opposite. It starts with the details of Scripture and then builds a general or universal statement based on those details. . . .A weakness of the deductive method of Bible study has already been mentioned: if we start with a false premise, then we will not arrive at a proper conclusion." [Note bad premises ruin any logic]
or
[quote]"Let me explain. A "deductive" Bible study begins from a point that the teacher is trying to make, and then uses a number of scripture verses and examples to support that conclusion. Most sermons and Bible studies are conducted this way. Our JesusWalk study is an example of this.
An "inductive" Bible study, on the other hand begins with the raw text of scripture, and encourages participants to read the text and draw conclusions directly from the text itself says. This is an important learning method that uses questions to elicit thought and learning. It also trains people to study the Bible better, since it teaches them to ask questions which help them understand what is going on, what is being said, and how that relates to the rest of the passage."[Note that "begins from a point" should be "begins from a point agreed to be true based on a previous study"]
or from one I find especially annoying and ill-informed:
I will grant that synthetic theological bible studies tend to be more deductive and that literary bible studies, for example, tend to be more inductive.
or from a source I agree with:
[quote]"A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Methods of Reasoning
The deductive method of reasoning moves toward necessary conclusions derived from correct connections between premises premises which are all either given or assumed to be true.
The inductive method of reasoning moves toward possible conclusions derived from hypothetical connections between premises (observations) which are selected from among all possible true premises (observations).
Ideally, the deductive method of reasoning is objective in its conclusions (the conclusions are necessarily true), but subjective in its premises (the premises are assumed to be true).
Ideally, the inductive method of reasoning is subjective in its conclusions (the conclusions are not necessarily true), but objective in its premises (the premises are observed to be true)."
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.
P.S. The rise of presuppositional apologetics has made me even more convinced that Christians need to be careful with their use of logical language. And no, I don't object to presuppositional apologetics as a term; I am simply concerned that people know precisely what they mean by the term.
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:
Talking out loud here...
I actually found out how to tag resources in groups, but I would love to hear your process on how you go about tagging. In other words, I'm not asking for WHAT you tag, or even tag titles, but what is your process. Do you search through a filter and then tag those in groups, do you open each individual title and tag that title? What is your actual PROCESS for tagging? Thanks in advance.
Presuming a group of books, I first tag them all as 'New' so I don't loose them in the process.
Then I apply global tags (eg which platform has the resource)
Then one by one, I go down the filtered 'new' list, tag and edit the titles for easier use.
Finally, I remove the 'new' tag. At which point they all swim away, to say hello to all their friends (typically mixed with updates, etc).
Denise! Brilliant! This is very helpful. THANK YOU!
Cynthia
Romans 8:28-38
0 -
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
