Afterlife, digital copies or clones

[+Nuclear Wessel]

9 hours ago, danydandan said:

Cut through all the crap here, yes or no question really. Were the courses you taught based on continued assessment in part and then a final exam? All the other stuff is irrelevant. 

Did you expect anything less? Walker is incapable of answering a question like that without highlighting some of his achievements. 

[Mellon Man]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

.But the idea that anybody could know the correct answer here and now is hubris, plain and simple. I don't care how many years the person went to school or what they studied.

Agreed, at least not with current understandings. Of course, depending  on your definition of ‘know’. 

This can be illustrated by below example, somewhat similar to your example. 

Of course, below example is through the lense of current knowledge, future knowledge is assumed not to be present. 

Person A who died today used to be married to Person B, but at the time of death had been divorced from Person B for several decades. Person A and B had reproduced, which resulted in Person C. 
Person A kept the engraved wedding ring from the marriage with Person B. Person A kept the ring as a reminder to themselves of their failures which led to the divorce from Person B. Thus, the ring had its original meaning transformed. Person C may or may not have known this, but Person A had told Person C, Person A wanted various items included in their interment, such as the ring.
500 years later, an excavation takes place and the inhumation of Person A is discovered. Archaeologists creates a narrative, due to the discovery of the engraved ring. that Person A was married to Person B (Which is true) at the time of death (Which is not true). Thus, the artefact is wrongly interpreted, which leads to an incorrect assumption Person A was married at the time of death. Archaeologists would not have a chance to know the artefact had it’s original meaning transformed, unless other surviving evidence suggest this. Thus, the creation of an erroneous narrative. Hope this helps in understanding that difficulties of studying the past, also why archaeologists and historians cannot to know the truth with current theoretical understanding. Scholars of the past can only create ‘likely/most likely’ narratives, dependent on available evidence. But never certain narratives. Uncertainty will always exist, within fields studying the past. Above example can also be used for an argument against the use of processual theory and in favour for the use of other theories, such as post-processual or culture-historical. However, likewise an example can be created where the use of processual theory would have lower uncertainties,  compared to others. This is why I previously stated that no historian or archaeologist would, most likely, dismiss uncertainty when pressed.

[Mellon Man]

On 11/8/2020 at 11:18 AM, Mr Walker said:

Your last sentence doesn't make grammatical sense so i dont really know what you are saying o r asking  but i will try to respond to what iTHINK you are saying 

In South Australia all public exams for university entrance (and all non examination assessments like practical work etc)  are marked  then  the non exam results and all the students work  for the year is moderated(checked)  by teams of experienced teachers (i was on those moderation  teams for several years checking work and teachers standards form all over South Australia ) and  the results, for both individuals and schools, are made public 

I also won The Geography teachers award for my work helping both final  year (pre university )   students and teachers improve their work and standards across the state  Basically i was very good a t my job.    

Both grades and points are given eg maximum score for a subject is an A 17/19 out of 20 or percentage equivalent.

  20/20 is  known as a perfect score and gives the  student a trip to the governor's house  for a special award presentation  it MUST be checked and moderated by a panel to ensure it is truly exceptional work.

  Because this  level of detail of results is published and analysed  on computers (with graphs spread sheets etc included ) it can be seen how a teacher, or a class, or a student, or a school   fits into the state wide results subject by subject and overall. 

Consistently my students performed 20-25% better than the state averages. 

eg The grades of my students were that much higher than the average grades 

I dont know why you find this  to be complete horse radish The numbers were recognised and published by my school and i was recognised, as i said, both with an award  and  the role of becoming one of the teachers who oversaw  moderation of results of every student across the state in my disciplines 

No one failed,  some got  passes, and many got As and Bs (14-19 out of 20)  (70-95%) I also had several students awarded perfect scores   Again all of these results and bands were 20-25% higher than the state average ie my total marks and the spread of marks in passes and As and Bs was that  far above the average

This was not a bell curve where the top 10% of students( no matter what their actual grades were) gets an A and the bottom 10% gets anE . ie it was possible for every student in the state to get 20/20 or them all to get 0 The y didn't take the results and give a certain % (like the top  10%)  an A   and the bottom 10% an E etc. Every student could potentially get an A or an E   The y were given a grade which reflected their results (both in exams and in field /practical work)  

because both exams and other work was carefully moderated it could also  be seen how  any years work was better or worse than the one before  and how, in a school, a teacher might be improving (or otherwise)  the results of his/her students year by year 

Now as well as being a good teacher i had some other advantages.

i had smaller classes than some big city schools (usually the y were less than 20 students)  I had easier access to individual, original  and genuine field work for my students, where as city kids were often kept to class based field work. i actually took mine out individually or in groups for hours  after school or on weekends  doing all sorts of field work on Lower eyre peninsula. 

  Most of my students had a good work ethos Plus i ran evening and night classes where i supplied pizza and soft drinks  every week  to help the students, and i spent several weeks of my holidays each year, at school with any  students who wanted or needed extra help and time 

On the other hand we lacked the modern  computer equipment to do a lot of modern geospatial work, even though i spent a fortnight each year   for 3 years in adelaide learning how to use it .

This didn't seem to,matter too much, because the field work, while old fashioned, was excellent  I made copies and gave some to local museums (eg detailed cemetery surveys and oral histories of old farmers,  and archaeological surveys of local indigenous middens and early settlers homesteads  One looked a t time use of children in the first half of the 20th century   while others looked a t work/ foods eaten  in a similar period   One was an underwater investigation; mapping,  photographing, researching and cataloguing,  marine artefacts  alongside our jetty which was built in the late 1800s to export grain and minerals   Tha t produced some excellent work by a scuba diving female   student Another young lass had a boy friend with a pilots licence and she did an aerial survey of   changing land use and rural settlement over time (eg by plotting the distribution of  old farmhouses (including ruins and almost invisible remnants)   and thus showing how mechanisation reduced the number of farms, while increasing their size  

I gave some copies to local councils for similar reasons (my students were the first to plot/map  graph and analyze grave details, including ages and gender etc of people in half a dozen local cemeteries, long before computers made this easier  )   

I still have quite a lot of original and copied works out in my shed 5 years after retirement  

 

May I ask, have you applied any critical thinking? If not, may I help you? Have you given any thought on how geography(given your awesomeness in the subject) may effect the numbers? Why a comparison with a state average may be a misrepresentation? Could go on, but tbh I see little value. I suspect that it may be impossible to reason with you. I could be wrong (I hope this is the case). 
 

Please don’t respond with a “I won a noble prize and therefore the numbers cannot be horse radish”

[eight bits]

Let me share a short video in which two rising stars of the  guild assert that it is "almost certain" that Jesus existed, that the question is an "open and shut case," and give reasons why. The people are Ian Mills and Laura Robinson, who are finishing up their PhD dissertations at Duke University. The graduate program they are in doesn't promote itself as a "history department,"

https://graduateprograminreligion.duke.edu/new-testament

but I'll happily concede that each has taken far more history courses than me. As people around here know, I respect Ian & Laura and have learned from them. Even though I disagree with them on this, and will be critical of the video, they are not stooges I've dug up in order to have an easy target.

Their video runs about 5 minutes:

 

Unpacking this is a bit complicated, because the only firm argument offered for existence is Paul's use of the phrase the brothers of the Lord. Instead of leading with this, it's introduced in the middle. That Paul used this phrase is a typical guild choice for a "strongest argument." James McGrath of Butler University thinks it should settle the question, and Bart Ehrman, who teaches near Ian & Laura, is also fond of it.

Ian & Laura do a poor job, in my opinion, of landing this supposed knock-out punch. For one thing, Paul doesn't need to distinguish Peter from James - they have different names. What Paul needs to do is to distinguish this James from other men named James, a popular name then and now.

In dealing with other possible interpretations, they emphasize the hypothetical "separate class of leaders." Supposedly, Ian can't find any evidence for such a separate class. Well, I can - the very opening of Galatians, 1:1, 18 verses earlier than where Paul writes about James:

Quote

Paul, an apostle—not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ,* and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Are there apostles from men? Yes, the churches can appoint apostles. Is Paul the only apostle through Jesus Christ? No, Peter is too, apparently: Galatians 2:7-8. Others? Maybe. There's a James mentioned among those including Peter and Paul who were visited by the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), maybe some of those people also received apostolic commissons from Jesus, as Peter and Paul did. Maybe James was one of them.

Note also that we know of nobody who uses the phrase except Paul, so it needn't be "special" in the sense of a rank conferred upon these people in some ceremony. As long as Paul's own people know who he means, then that's all there need be to it.

Maybe Ian meant "proof" that there was such a class, and that's fine if so. But there is an evidentiary foundation for the alternative interpretation, and that is all that is required to keep the question open.

The other points mentioned are obscure. Laura's lead-off commentary on Galatians 4:4 is actually rebuttal to one of the lamer arguments offered by Richard Carrier, that when Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman, Paul uses an unusual verb for being born. The matter may be of some importance to Carrier's own specific theory of a mythical Jesus, but fictional characters have mothers, too, and even purely celestial beings have been said to visit Earth in one form or another. It's an odd choice for Laura to headline (although she is reputedly a champion Koine Greek maven, so maybe it's important to her personally).

The other obscure argument is Mark 7:1-23, where supposedly Mark describes Jesus as doing something (ending the Jewish dietary laws) when Mark shows Jesus doing something else (discussing hand washing etiquette).

Even if that was what's on the page, it is unclear how it would make Jesus real. Yes, kids, fictional characters sometimes do things that surprise their authors. And the main problem is that it isn't exactly what's on the page: some manuscripts have Mark's comment that that's what Jesus is doing, and others don't. It could be a later addition and not Mark's work at all.

And finally on that point, I think Ian has conflated Matthew 15:1-20 with Mark. Mattie tells a similar story, but has Jesus clarify that he is only speaking about hand-washing when he says that what goes into people's mouths doesn't defile them. Matthew's extra speech is really good evidence that Matthew read Mark and worried that what Jesus supposedly said was or could be interpreted as ending the dietary laws - which is the opposite of Mark having imposed an untenable interpretation upon the action depicted.

Anyway, savor the envy of Yale at the end. Lol. Duke's OK. No worries.

Edited November 9, 2020 by eight bits

[Mellon Man]

7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Let me share a short video in which two rising stars of the  guild assert that it is "almost certain" that Jesus existed, that the question is an "open and shut case," and give reasons why. The people are Ian Mills and Laura Robinson, who are finishing up their PhD dissertations at Duke University. The graduate program they are in doesn't promote itself as a "history department,"

https://graduateprograminreligion.duke.edu/new-testament

but I'll happily concede that each has taken more history courses than me. As people around here know, I respct Ian & Laura and have learned from them. Even though I disagree with them on this, and will be critical of the video, they are not stooges I've dug up in order to have an easy target.

Their video runs about 5 minutes:

 

Unpacking this is a bit complicated, because the only firm argument offered for existence is Paul's use of the phrase the brothers of the Lord. Instead of leading with this, it's introduced in the middle. That Paul used this phrase is a typical guild choice for a "strongest argument." James McGrath of Butler University thinks it should settle the question, and Bart Ehrman, who teaches near Ian & Laura, is also fond of it.

Ian & Laura do a poor job, in my opinion, of landing this supposed knock-out punch. For one thing, Paul doesn't need to distinguish Peter from Jacob - they have different names. What Paul needs to do is to distinguish this James from other men named James, a popular name then and now.

In dealing with other possible interpretations, they emphasize the "separate class of leaders." Supposedly, Ian can't find any evidence for such a separate class. Well, I can - the very opening of Galatians, 1:1, 18 verses earlier than when Paul writes about James:

Are there apostles from men? Yes, the churches can appoint apostles. Is Paul the only apostle through Jesus Christ? No, Peter is too, apparently: Galatians 2:7-8. Others? Maybe. There's a James mentioned among those including Peter and Paul who were visited by the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), maybe some of those people also received apostolic commissons from Jesus, as Peter and Paul did. Maybe James was one of them.

Note also that we know of nobody who uses the phrase except Paul, so it needn't be "special" in the sense of a rank conferred among these people in some ceremony. As long as Peter's own people know who he means, then that's all there need be to it.

Maybe Ian meant "proof" that there was such a class, and that's fine if so. But there is an evidentiary foundation for the alternative interpretation, and that is all that is required to keep the question open.

The other points mentioned are obscure. Laura's lead-off commentary on Galatians 4:4 is actually rebuttal to one of the lamer arguments offered by Richard Carrier, that when Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman, Paul uses an unusual verb for being born. The matter may be of some importance to Carrier's own specific theory of a mythical Jesus, but fictional characters have mothers, too, and even ceelstial beings have been known to visit Earth in one form or another. It's an odd choice for Laura to headline (although she is reputedly a champion Koine Greek maven, so maybe it's important to her personally).

The other obscure argument is Mark 7:1-23, where supposedly Mark describes Jesus as doing something (ending the Jewish dietary laws) when Mark shows Jesus doing something else (discussing hand washing etiquette).

Even if that were on the page, it is unclear how it would make Jesus real. Yes, kids, fictional characters sometimes do things that surprise their authors. And the main problem is that isn't actually on the page: some manuscripts have Mark's comment that that's what Jesus is doing, and others don't. It could be a later addition and not Mark's work at all.

And finally on that point, I think Ian has conflated Matthew 15:1-20 with Mark. Mattie tells a similar story, but has Jesus clarify that he is only speaking about hand-washing when he says that what goes into people's mouths doesn't defile them. Matthew's extra speech is really good evidence that Matthew read Mark and worried that what Jesus supposedly said was or could be interpreted as ending the dietary laws - which is the opposite of Mark having imposed an untenable interpretation upon the action depicted.

Anyway, note the envy of Yale at the end. Lol. Duke's OK. No worries.

 

Do you know which text they are using? There is nothing wrong with their method of analysis. However,  it is impossible to apply criticism, without knowing which text and translation they are using. If Ancient Greek, as I suspect, I could construct a criticism. However, that would entail a long, very long, explanation and exploration of Ancient Greek linguistics. 

Below may give an indication of what such exploration would entail. 

Their use of ‘almost certainly’ would’ve accepted within academia. However, any PhD supervisor should and likely have, given guidance on why such wording is bad practice. 
 

[+Hammerclaw]

15 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Let me share a short video in which two rising stars of the  guild assert that it is "almost certain" that Jesus existed, that the question is an "open and shut case," and give reasons why. The people are Ian Mills and Laura Robinson, who are finishing up their PhD dissertations at Duke University. The graduate program they are in doesn't promote itself as a "history department,"

https://graduateprograminreligion.duke.edu/new-testament

but I'll happily concede that each has taken far more history courses than me. As people around here know, I respect Ian & Laura and have learned from them. Even though I disagree with them on this, and will be critical of the video, they are not stooges I've dug up in order to have an easy target.

Their video runs about 5 minutes:

 

Unpacking this is a bit complicated, because the only firm argument offered for existence is Paul's use of the phrase the brothers of the Lord. Instead of leading with this, it's introduced in the middle. That Paul used this phrase is a typical guild choice for a "strongest argument." James McGrath of Butler University thinks it should settle the question, and Bart Ehrman, who teaches near Ian & Laura, is also fond of it.

Ian & Laura do a poor job, in my opinion, of landing this supposed knock-out punch. For one thing, Paul doesn't need to distinguish Peter from James - they have different names. What Paul needs to do is to distinguish this James from other men named James, a popular name then and now.

In dealing with other possible interpretations, they emphasize the hypothetical "separate class of leaders." Supposedly, Ian can't find any evidence for such a separate class. Well, I can - the very opening of Galatians, 1:1, 18 verses earlier than where Paul writes about James:

Are there apostles from men? Yes, the churches can appoint apostles. Is Paul the only apostle through Jesus Christ? No, Peter is too, apparently: Galatians 2:7-8. Others? Maybe. There's a James mentioned among those including Peter and Paul who were visited by the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), maybe some of those people also received apostolic commissons from Jesus, as Peter and Paul did. Maybe James was one of them.

Note also that we know of nobody who uses the phrase except Paul, so it needn't be "special" in the sense of a rank conferred upon these people in some ceremony. As long as Paul's own people know who he means, then that's all there need be to it.

Maybe Ian meant "proof" that there was such a class, and that's fine if so. But there is an evidentiary foundation for the alternative interpretation, and that is all that is required to keep the question open.

The other points mentioned are obscure. Laura's lead-off commentary on Galatians 4:4 is actually rebuttal to one of the lamer arguments offered by Richard Carrier, that when Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman, Paul uses an unusual verb for being born. The matter may be of some importance to Carrier's own specific theory of a mythical Jesus, but fictional characters have mothers, too, and even purely celestial beings have been said to visit Earth in one form or another. It's an odd choice for Laura to headline (although she is reputedly a champion Koine Greek maven, so maybe it's important to her personally).

The other obscure argument is Mark 7:1-23, where supposedly Mark describes Jesus as doing something (ending the Jewish dietary laws) when Mark shows Jesus doing something else (discussing hand washing etiquette).

Even if that was what's on the page, it is unclear how it would make Jesus real. Yes, kids, fictional characters sometimes do things that surprise their authors. And the main problem is that it isn't exactly what's on the page: some manuscripts have Mark's comment that that's what Jesus is doing, and others don't. It could be a later addition and not Mark's work at all.

And finally on that point, I think Ian has conflated Matthew 15:1-20 with Mark. Mattie tells a similar story, but has Jesus clarify that he is only speaking about hand-washing when he says that what goes into people's mouths doesn't defile them. Matthew's extra speech is really good evidence that Matthew read Mark and worried that what Jesus supposedly said was or could be interpreted as ending the dietary laws - which is the opposite of Mark having imposed an untenable interpretation upon the action depicted.

Anyway, savor the envy of Yale at the end. Lol. Duke's OK. No worries.

For some reason, watching the video, I couldn't help myself mentally comparing it to numerous such straight-faced narratives concerning Paul Atreides by devoted Dune fans. Of course, while Jesus certainly has broader appeal, Paul Atreides has much greater primary literary depth....

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Back in the 60s when i was at school we sent our major piece of field work for Geography  to Adelaide for assessment It counted for 25 or 30 % of the course and the exam was the rest.

Back then this was one of very few courses which was not entirely exam assessed 

I did Physics, maths 1 and 2, English, Geography  Ancient and modern history.All these apart form geography    were  graded entirely on  3 hour exams run  state wide simultaneously   and marked in Adelaide  Over my 40 year teaching career, assessments for university entrance evolved.  More weight was given to non exam   components over time. However the acadmic versions of every subject were still mostly exam based and the results were weighted for University entrance 

So the question was, if the courses you TAUGHT were based on continual assessment and/or an exam. Yes or no?

What you were TAUGHT has absolutely nothing to do with the question posed. 

If yes to the above question is your answer, please elaborate. Also who graded the assessments?

[danydandan]

3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Did you expect anything less? Walker is incapable of answering a question like that without highlighting some of his achievements. 

Yeah I know, what the hell was I thinking?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Just now, danydandan said:

Yeah I know, what the hell was I thinking?

Were you?

Just messin'.

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Were you?

Just messin'.

Obviously not. 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mellon Man said:

Do you know which text they are using?

My impression is that standard practice is to use a current critical edition of the Greek New Testament in a situation like this. Probably Nestle-Aland, 28th Edition (NA²⁸ to the initiated, lol).

So far as I know, there's no controversy (= widespread difference among ancient manuscripts) about which verb Paul used in Galatians 4:4. The source manuscripts do differ about Mark 7:19, Ian obviously prefers the ones with the comment included.

In neither case, though, is there much at stake. Paul used an unusual, oddly non-specific, verb for "being born." Mark may have interpreted the speech he wrote for his Jesus differently than Matthew did when he copied the speech from Mark. Neither situation sheds much light on whether Jesus was a real person who actually lived.

2 hours ago, Mellon Man said:

Their use of ‘almost certainly’ would’ve accepted within academia. However, any PhD supervisor should and likely have, given guidance on why such wording is bad practice. 

It's a term of art in mathematical statistics and probability theory, as in "if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly until it comes up heads, then the sequence will almost certainly end."  That is, the limit in increasing n of (1/2)ⁿ, the probability of n tails in a row, is zero, but there is no logically required maximum possible number of tails before the first heads occurs.

OK - a historian can use a phrase differently than an applied mathematician, fair enough. But what almost certain connotes in plain English isn't anything like what Jesus's prospects for historicity are. The video is directed to the general English-speaking population, not specialists who'd know that "almost certain" means "there are worse hypotheses."

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by eight bits

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Did you expect anything less? Walker is incapable of answering a question like that without highlighting some of his achievements. 

The question/issue WENT to my authority and experience

And it is hard to answer a yes /no question which does not have a yes/ no answer .

Plus, I assumed a genuine interest in the process.

I even gave a source which meant i didn't have to go into total details of present procedures,  and add a few hundred more words in doing so 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, danydandan said:

So the question was, if the courses you TAUGHT were based on continual assessment and/or an exam. Yes or no?

What you were TAUGHT has absolutely nothing to do with the question posed. 

If yes to the above question is your answer, please elaborate. Also who graded the assessments?

Yes it does if you were reading my posts (and perhaps took note of the  details )

 

I taught 

Some subjects with all the results based on an external exam

Some subjects with NO exam

 Some subjects where the exam made up 70%of the total score

Some subjects where the exam made up 50% of the total score 

Some subjects where the  exam made up 30 % of the total score (since i retired this seems have to have become the standard  percentage for all subjects with exams)

Exams are set by a central authority They are conducted at exactly the same time  across the state from centra lAdeleide to the remotest school.

  No one in a school can open the sealed exam papers until the day of the exam

The y are marked, and if required remarked, by experienced teachers and curriculum experts  in Adelaide

In the last few years some exams are being done online but under same conditions  

Some subjects also, or instead of an exam,  had a particular task such as a production,  field work,  construction etc  

Work NOT assessed in an exam was moderated by panels of experts in Adelaide 

Sometimes ALL class work was sent from  a sample of students Sometimes every students work in a selected number of tasks was sent 

My original point stands 

My results were always 20-25% above the state average, and sometimes more,  whether the courses were entirely exam assessed or not 

I was asked to publish and share many of the tasks i designed,  both with teachers at the moderation exercises and at state conferences 

The moderators verified standards and grades and adjusted them if necessary.  

I also said that I became one of those moderators for  a number of years and looked a t and moderated work form every school in our state both govt and private  (this was a good experience as I had a paid trip to Adelaide, up to two weeks in good hotel accomodation with all expenses paid and quite a good pay cheque for my time More importantly however it allowed me to learn and share with other experienced teachers from  across the state  I then went back to my home region and shred this with other teachers around my region, in local meetings or one on one.

That Included schools like Cowell Cleve Cummins and Port Lincoln (govt and private schools)  

This was part of the reason i won the DD Harris award for Geography teaching based on the work  I did with students and teachers to improve course work and results, and to learn better ways of doing things 

http://www.gtasa.asn.au/dd-harris-award

(Obviously moderators were not allowed to moderate their own schools work)

 

 

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Mellon Man said:

May I ask, have you applied any critical thinking? If not, may I help you? Have you given any thought on how geography(given your awesomeness in the subject) may effect the numbers? Why a comparison with a state average may be a misrepresentation? Could go on, but tbh I see little value. I suspect that it may be impossible to reason with you. I could be wrong (I hope this is the case). 
 

Please don’t respond with a “I won a noble prize and therefore the numbers cannot be horse radish”

lol No i was only a runner up for the noble prize  and never submitted for the Nobel.  

Of course ive considered those things  during a life time of constructing, teaching and assessing,  courses and some years moderating state wide course work Plus years helping students and teachers improve their work and results  

You like to  ask open ended  questions which can then be used to trap a person via later manipulation 

if  you explain  how/why you think I have made a statistical error, then i will correct you .  

I tried to explain the marking /grading system in detail, explaining  tha t grades are given on individual merit, not a standardised ranking system .

So one year  100 students out of 1000 across the state   might get an A and the next 50/1000  might and the next year 200/1000 When a teacher improved the grades of individuals and their class this could be seen and measured across the state Thus not only can results be tracked across the state, year by year but a total school or individual subjects can be tracked over the years . So if a new teacher came in and considerably improved or diminished the past  results in his/her  classes this would be noted and acted upon.

  Teachers with the best statistical  track records were given the most final year subjects to teach (within their areas of expertise)   

Not only could I work out how much better my students results were but so could anyone, from  the detailed statistical analysis  which came back to schools with the result sheets 

This was possible in EVERY subject and our school rated higher than average in almost every subject .

Until it was stopped by the dept., schools would publish these results in order to show the y were above average and( in the city)  attract students to their school Private schools can still do this But govt schools are not allowed to compete with each other on results  Teachers, parents, and students can see the comparisons by going to the school once the y are sent out,   but cant copy or publish them 

One part of your question simply doesn't make sense (geography per se can't affect the numbers Only things within geography classes  can affect results for geography ) I wasn't comparing my results with the stae average of other subjects oNly for the subjects i taught  BUT, school by school you could measure, and were even give,  how your overall results compared across the state with all  other schools So our school might have had 20% more As and Bs and 50% less failures than the state average when all subjects were looked a t   

The second part is ambiguous 

explain" misleading" in what way 

It was seen as so accurate tha t it had to be banned from  publication so tha t schools could not seek to take students away from others based on their results  eg a richer, better resourced, school might produce better results But more likely it had to do with teacher experience, enthusiasm, and hard work  (i spent many many hours with students after school and in holidays helping them to improve their work) Some teachers in some schools did nothing outside of class time (as  stated we had some natural advantages and some material disadvantages being a smaller rural school eg i and the students could easily get together The y all had licences and cars. I could take one or two out to do individual field work for a day if needed  I lived in the community and everyone knew where i lived (indeed classes would come out to our farm for various functions including barbecues  so i was only a phone call or visit away  for any student,  parent,  or fellow teacher ) 

Now there are political/ social arguments for and against this,  (some might even argue that i gave my  students an unfair advantage by my availability when city teachers would have had a harder time doing so .On the other hand city teachers had easier access to many resources )  but its not misrepresentation to present accurate statistical analysis (and we could still present it to  members  of the school community ) 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mellon Man]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Let me share a short video in which two rising stars of the  guild assert that it is "almost certain" that Jesus existed, that the question is an "open and shut case," and give reasons why. The people are Ian Mills and Laura Robinson, who are finishing up their PhD dissertations at Duke University. The graduate program they are in doesn't promote itself as a "history department,"

https://graduateprograminreligion.duke.edu/new-testament

but I'll happily concede that each has taken far more history courses than me. As people around here know, I respect Ian & Laura and have learned from them. Even though I disagree with them on this, and will be critical of the video, they are not stooges I've dug up in order to have an easy target.

Their video runs about 5 minutes:

 

Unpacking this is a bit complicated, because the only firm argument offered for existence is Paul's use of the phrase the brothers of the Lord. Instead of leading with this, it's introduced in the middle. That Paul used this phrase is a typical guild choice for a "strongest argument." James McGrath of Butler University thinks it should settle the question, and Bart Ehrman, who teaches near Ian & Laura, is also fond of it.

Ian & Laura do a poor job, in my opinion, of landing this supposed knock-out punch. For one thing, Paul doesn't need to distinguish Peter from James - they have different names. What Paul needs to do is to distinguish this James from other men named James, a popular name then and now.

In dealing with other possible interpretations, they emphasize the hypothetical "separate class of leaders." Supposedly, Ian can't find any evidence for such a separate class. Well, I can - the very opening of Galatians, 1:1, 18 verses earlier than where Paul writes about James:

Are there apostles from men? Yes, the churches can appoint apostles. Is Paul the only apostle through Jesus Christ? No, Peter is too, apparently: Galatians 2:7-8. Others? Maybe. There's a James mentioned among those including Peter and Paul who were visited by the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), maybe some of those people also received apostolic commissons from Jesus, as Peter and Paul did. Maybe James was one of them.

Note also that we know of nobody who uses the phrase except Paul, so it needn't be "special" in the sense of a rank conferred upon these people in some ceremony. As long as Paul's own people know who he means, then that's all there need be to it.

Maybe Ian meant "proof" that there was such a class, and that's fine if so. But there is an evidentiary foundation for the alternative interpretation, and that is all that is required to keep the question open.

The other points mentioned are obscure. Laura's lead-off commentary on Galatians 4:4 is actually rebuttal to one of the lamer arguments offered by Richard Carrier, that when Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman, Paul uses an unusual verb for being born. The matter may be of some importance to Carrier's own specific theory of a mythical Jesus, but fictional characters have mothers, too, and even purely celestial beings have been said to visit Earth in one form or another. It's an odd choice for Laura to headline (although she is reputedly a champion Koine Greek maven, so maybe it's important to her personally).

The other obscure argument is Mark 7:1-23, where supposedly Mark describes Jesus as doing something (ending the Jewish dietary laws) when Mark shows Jesus doing something else (discussing hand washing etiquette).

Even if that was what's on the page, it is unclear how it would make Jesus real. Yes, kids, fictional characters sometimes do things that surprise their authors. And the main problem is that it isn't exactly what's on the page: some manuscripts have Mark's comment that that's what Jesus is doing, and others don't. It could be a later addition and not Mark's work at all.

And finally on that point, I think Ian has conflated Matthew 15:1-20 with Mark. Mattie tells a similar story, but has Jesus clarify that he is only speaking about hand-washing when he says that what goes into people's mouths doesn't defile them. Matthew's extra speech is really good evidence that Matthew read Mark and worried that what Jesus supposedly said was or could be interpreted as ending the dietary laws - which is the opposite of Mark having imposed an untenable interpretation upon the action depicted.

Anyway, savor the envy of Yale at the end. Lol. Duke's OK. No worries.

I gave this another watch, given a lack of full attention, previously.
I suspect they are being deliberately controversial to generate interactions. I base this on no application of rhetorical criticism in their short clip. They call themselves real historians, but do not use the historians toolset? Hence, my speculation on a wish to create controversy. 

So I decided to give their podcast a listen, to get a better bearing on their understandings. I decided on their latest upload to YouTube, but had to turn it off after 5 minutes of watching. In below video, it is claimed that Hansen’s PROBABLY originated from India and the first attested in 6th century BC. I strongly contest this claim. 
This is utter hogwash, excuse my bias but this is my exact field. Hansen’s (M. leprae or M. lepromatosis) did most likely not originate in India. Also that she uses documentary evidence as her claim for first attested case, just shows her bias toward text. Mine, being towards archaeological evidence. The consensus within bioarchaeology is that Hansen’s likely originated in the Near East. There are massive limitations on currents methods, which can rightfully be criticised. However, her claims are just erroneous, making her entire argument fall apart. It is more likely Hansen’s originated around 100.000 years ago in the Near East (Monot et al. 2005), than in India. Also, we have evidence for leprosy in Hungary from the Late Copper Age (Kohler et al. 2017). Evidence also exist from Egypt, within the Greco-Roman period. 

 

[Mellon Man]

 

 

[eight bits]

8 minutes ago, Mellon Man said:

Hence, my speculation on a wish to create controversy. 

They have a great track record, and have been in the public eye for about 2 years going on 3. The stance of this video follows plausibly enough from what they said in a recent critique of The Ascension of Isaiah, which is an evidentiary cornerstone of the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory. That critique was played straight in my view. The brothers of the Lord argument is standard, and especially well-liked by a high-profile professor at a neighboring institution who's on Ian's PhD committee. Laura's unusual attention to the verb may be explained by her Koine-expertise and orientation.

I think they're clean. What you see is what you get, IMO.

28 minutes ago, Mellon Man said:

So I decided to give their podcast a listen, to get a better bearing on their understandings. I decided on their latest upload to YouTube,

Is that the eastern inscriptions one (Episode 37. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East)? Who made the mistake that bothered you, them or the author whose work they were reviewing?

If them, send one of them an email. They'll take the criticism seriously and have at least once done a "mailbag" and errata episode.

You didn't comment on the miracles episode (not of the podcast, but one of the extras they're playing around with lately). What did you think of it?

[Mr Walker]

10 hours ago, danydandan said:

So the question was, if the courses you TAUGHT were based on continual assessment and/or an exam. Yes or no?

What you were TAUGHT has absolutely nothing to do with the question posed. 

If yes to the above question is your answer, please elaborate. Also who graded the assessments?

Ps  How  i was taught  and assessed in 1969 is relevant as a part of a continuous evolution of assessment in south Australia in which i was heavily involved Then it was very rare for a subject assessment   to not be totally based on the exam.

  Geography (for logical reasons) was an exception ie right from first  term in first  year uni we had to undertake a number of individual field studies in urban and regional areas, so the entrance criteria included a students abilty to do this

I spent 4 years a t uni and began teaching in 1974 At that time it was still similar, with almost every subject being assessed on an end of year exam. 

In the 80s it began to change and diversify and i has continued to do so until today. .

 

[danydandan]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Some subjects with NO exam

 Some subjects where the exam made up 70%of the total score

Some subjects where the exam made up 50% of the total score 

Some subjects where the  exam made up 30 % of the total score (since i retired this seems have to have become the standard  percentage for all subjects with exams)

That was easy eh!

So based on the below, you graded the work not assessed via exam and this was moderated by others on a panel? 

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Work NOT assessed in an exam was moderated by panels of experts in Adelaide 

Sometimes ALL class work was sent from  a sample of students Sometimes every students work in a selected number of tasks was sent 

The rest of the My and I comments in your posts aren't relevant. When your students went off in a tangent did you increase or decrease their grade lol?

[Mellon Man]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

They have a great track record, and have been in the public eye for about 2 years going on 3. The stance of this video follows plausibly enough from what they said in a recent critique of The Ascension of Isaiah, which is an evidentiary cornerstone of the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory. That critique was played straight in my view. The brothers of the Lord argument is standard, and especially well-liked by a high-profile professor at a neighboring institution who's on Ian's PhD committee. Laura's unusual attention to the verb may be explained by her Koine-expertise and orientation.

I think they're clean. What you see is what you get, IMO.

Is that the eastern inscriptions one (Episode 37. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East)? Who made the mistake that bothered you, them or the author whose work they were reviewing?

If them, send one of them an email. They'll take the criticism seriously and have at least once done a "mailbag" and errata episode.

You didn't comment on the miracles episode (not of the podcast, but one of the extras they're playing around with lately). What did you think of it?

I am debating if I should write to her, but also her supervisor’s institutional address. I have a hard time comprehending these videos are not just attempts of controversy for engagement.

I am also wondering if it is worth spending a real effort looking into the field of biblical studies. I stumbled upon some biblical scholars, who spent the first part of their thesis (not to be confused with a doctoral thesis) defending critiques on their methodology, received by historians outside the biblical studies field. I didn’t give it much attention, as I fell down the rabbit hole previously mentioned (Extremely weak claim for evidence on a synagogue where Jesus preached by the same scholars). However, it would be interesting to explore if there is a tendency towards cherry picking within the field, as there was with above mentioned scholars and the PhD student, claiming leprosy did not exist in the Levant during the time of Jesus (See Matheson et al. 2009, for aDNA evidence showing leprosy in Jerusalem at the time of when Jesus supposedly lived).

As for what I thought of the above posted  video(by me)? Her entire argument falls apart from the get go. Her claim is that leprosy did not exist in the Levant during the time of the writings. This is erroneous. Her argument is based on ‘absence of evidence, is evidence of absence’. Which is extremely erroneous within archaeology (Biology as well). She cherry picks. She excludes highlighting the documentary evidence of Hippocrates, Cornelius Celus and Pliny the elder, to just name a few. Let’s not even discuss the excluded archaeological evidence which exist.  
If we were to entertain her claim, that leprosy originated in India but came to Mediterranean around 200 BC through migration, I suspect she is relying of the archaeological evidence from Egypt from around 250 BC, as her ‘Mediterranean claim’, Ancient Egypt is the Near East. As to her use of geographical words, speculation can only be applied (but very noteworthy). Did this migration from India to the Mediterranean magically and very confidently take a big detour around the Levant? An argument can be made of wrong translation of lepra, as in Ancient Greek it simply means a disease with scaly skin. However an argument could also be made of a correct translation, hence why it exist. The fact that she dismiss leprosy as being present in the Levant, during the time of Jesus, is just bad academic practice. 

From the two videos seen, so far, from the New Testament Review Podcast. I cannot see how anyone within the fields of history or archaeology would not slaughter these PhD students in their viva voce. If, of course, the videos are any indication of their work. 

It seems like Biblical scholars are working hard, very hard, on not actually being students of the past, but student of literature. Of course, is a generalisation fallacy, among others (I now have a negativity bias). But instead of creating narratives to fit a religious agenda, maybe they should focus more on being equipped to study the past. I will have to remove my negativity bias, if I am to write to her an her supervisor. So guess I will be doing a lot of meditation today  

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, danydandan said:

That was easy eh!

So based on the below, you graded the work not assessed via exam and this was moderated by others on a panel? 

The rest of the My and I comments in your posts aren't relevant. When your students went off in a tangent did you increase or decrease their grade lol?

sometimes  

things evolved and changed over the 40 years i was teaching Your comment is reasonably correct for the last decade of my teaching 

it still wasnt quite as simple as you describe.   eg before submitting students work, and during my grading process i always worked with another teacher from another school (or sometimes two or three of us) so we could informally check our own  grading against course requirements. This helped eliminate personal bias such as tha t based on personality, or amount of effort a student made, and ensured that all work was assessed against the given criteria. 

I always gave them more for creativity, detailed   explanation, and  in depth   understanding of complex concepts.

Ive never been a fan of brevity, (to me it i s often  a sign of laziness) although it is a skill  sometimes required  to complete a complex argument in a tight word limit  I ensured that all my students reached( but did not exceed)  the world limits set for each task Any unused word space is wasted opportunity 

You seem to be another person who thinks things are  always  simple and can be simply explained 

Anyway, I hope I've answered your questions,  both the explicit ones and any implied ones  

 

[danydandan]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It still wasnt quite as simple as you describe.   eg before submitting students work, and during my grading process i always worked with another teacher from another school (or sometimes two or three of us) so we could informally check our own  grading against course requirements. This helped eliminate personal bias such as tha t based on personality, or amount of effort a student made, and ensured that all work was assessed against the given criteria. 

I always gave them more for creativity, detailed   explanation, and  in depth   understanding of complex concepts.

It's pretty simple, to be fair.

You say you had a procedure to ensure personal biases could have an influence on the result? What was this? Was it blinded? 

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Mellon Man said:

As for what I thought of the above posted  video(by me)? Her entire argument falls apart from the get go. Her claim is that leprosy did not exist in the Levant during the time of the writings

Leviticus is what she mentions as having been written at a time and place free of Hansen's disease (around 03:50 or so in the video). She doesn't give her estimate of when Leviticus was written, but her views are generally conventional on most things Biblical. A typical modern conventional estimate is that Leviticus was edited into its current form around 430 BCE (+/- a century or so) from much earlier written sources.

Your comments seem to establish that Hansen's disease was prevalent in the Levant about 400-600 years later, when Mark was written. Laura doesn't say otherwise.

5 hours ago, Mellon Man said:

An argument can be made of wrong translation of lepra, as in Ancient Greek it simply means a disease with scaly skin. However an argument could also be made of a correct translation, hence why it exist.

She didn't say that a contrary argument couldn't be made, she argued against assuming lepra = Hansen's disease in the analysis of the pericope. Mark is talking about the disease discussed ithroughout Leviticus 13 and the sacrifies prescribed at 14:2-32. Based on the symptoms discussed at length in chapter 13, Hansen's disease could not be the only malady being described, if it is described there are at all.

Laura did go too far in saying that there is no spontaneous remission of Hansen's disease, but it is rare.

Yes, by all means, alert her committee. Tell me you were joking.

Edited November 10, 2020 by eight bits

[Mellon Man]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Leviticus is what she mentions as having been written at a time and place free of Hansen's disease (around 03:50 or so in the video). She doesn't give her estimate of when Leviticus was written, but her views are generally conventional on most things Biblical. A typical modern conventional estimate is that Leviticus was edited into its current form around 430 BCE (+/- a century or so) from much earlier written sources.

Your comments seem to establish that Hansen's disease was prevalent in the Levant about 400-600 years later, when Mark was written. Laura doesn't say otherwise.

She didn't say that a contrary argument couldn't be made, she argued against assuming lepra = Hansen's disease in the analysis of the pericope. Mark is talking about the disease discussed ithroughout Leviticus 13 and the sacrifies prescribed at 14:2-32. Based on the symptoms discussed at length in chapter 13, Hansen's disease could not be the only malady being described, if it is described there are at all.

Laura did go too far in saying that there is no spontaneous remission of Hansen's disease, but it is rare.

Yes, by all means, alert her committee. Tell me you were joking.

No, wasn’t joking in contacting her supervisor. I am curious about the practices applied. 

However, didn’t have any intention of contacting any viva examinators. How would one even find out who these are, when they haven’t been assigned yet? A supervisor is not part of the viva committee (In most cases).

I can though, see why one would believe so, due to my incoherent post above. 

So let me try to be more clear.

Her claim that leprosy was not present in the area during the writing of the documentary evidence, by Leviticus, is erroneous. There exist a consensus that leprosy originated in the Near East (Monet et al. 2005). When a consensus is established, it is the claimant against the consensus who has to supply strong evidence of why the consensus is erroneous. The so called burden of proof concept. This is the exact same reasoning used by biblical scholars, or so it seems, on the argument for a historical Jesus. One cannot cherry pick when appeal to ignorance should be and not be applied, simply because it fits one’s agenda and bias. Stating leprosy is not present in the area during the time of writing goes against the established consensus. Thus, a strong argument needs to be presented. The argument against leprosy in the area is based on absence of evidence, is evidence of absence. Such fallacy is not applicable within archaeology. The basis of the argument is inherently flawed and an argument from ignorance. The claim is that leprosy does not exist in the area because it has not been proven true (Even though egyptologist, historians, archaeological historians, archaeologists and bioarchaeologists have a strong shared consensus that leprosy most likely was present). This is correlative conjunction and a fallacy. Thus, why such cannot be applicable within fields such as archaeology, history, biology and medicine. 

Above alone is enough to dismiss her claim. However, I will chose to continue arguing against her claim and showing leprosy likely was present within Ancient Egypt at the time of Leviticus’ writings. Leprosy did almost certainly () not migrate from India to the Mediterranean around 200 BC (Schuenemann et al. 2018). 

The consensus agrees leprosy originated in the Near East and likely around 100.000 years ago (Monet et al. 2005).  She makes a claim that leprosy does not produce white scales. This is erroneous. There are two principle forms of leprosy. Tuberculoid leprosy and lepromatous leprosy. Although it is correct tuberculoid leprosy does not, lepromatous leprosy does (Dermatopathology, 2006). Thus, she and other biblical scholars should not exclude documentary evidence which describes such, on the basis that leprosy does not produce white scaly skin. A papyri from around 1550 BC in Ancient Egypt (von Deines et al. 1958) is likely one of the earliest written records in the Near East of leprosy. Martial culture, from Ancient Egypt, dated to around 1400-1300 BC also likely shows leprosy was in the area (Yeoli, 1955). Hippocrates likely also discussed leprosy in Ancient Egypt. I won’t go into the documentary evidence within the Old Testament describing leprosy in Egypt, even though descriptions within such are very fitting to lepromatous leprosy.

Above is enough to demonstrate why leprosy likely was present during Leviticus writings, making her claim and subsequent analysis erroneous. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Mellon Man

[eight bits]

Ok, tell you what. It's her argument, not mine. She's a public figure, you know how to contact her by email, so tell her your concerns and see what she thinks. For faster service, consider using the comments facility which accompanies the video. Report the result to us if you like.

Meanwhile, her announced subject is Mark 1:40ff. Her burden would seem to me to be to establish that it isn't certain that Mark's lepra is Hansen's. IMO, she met that burden. You yourself seem to agree that lepra could refer to any scaly skin condition. Maybe in your field it's different, but I understand that a scholar agreeing with another scholar's conclusion but not the argument leading up to it isn't entirely unprecedented.

That she is unqualified to diagnose Hansen's and neglects the low but positive rate of spontaneous remission in Hansen's might concern me more if she were about to receive an MD. I believe regarding India, she has confused origin of the disease with origin of the earliest extant clinically sound description of the disease. She may have further confused what people believed at the time with what we know now. By all means, mention that in your email or comment.

My only burden is that she be reasonably representative of the guild. She is. That she is unrepresentative of graduate students at Duke's medical school or global health institute doesn't bother me at all.

But thank you for the opportunity to take a crash course in Hansen's at Mr W's alma mater, Google U.

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by eight bits