What constitutes 'proof' on JWN?

by besty 81 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  besty

  Recently there have been a few threads where claims have been made alledging personal negative effects in 'real life' following internet activity on JWN and other ex-JW related sites. Discussion then ensues, aspects of which may include 3rd parties either disputing the truth or affirming the likelihood of the claim. Questions are asked. Evidence is presented. In many ways its like a public trial.

  The intention of this thread is not to dredge up or re-hash these particular claims, but rather to discuss what constitutes 'proof' when it comes to claims linking internet activity and real-life outcomes.

  Courts recognise various standards of proof depending on whether a civil or criminal case is being heard. In general the party making the allegation has to provide evidence to convince the court their allegation is at least 'more likely than not' and at most 'beyond all reasonable doubt' so that a jury can be 'sure' the allegation is true.

  I would argue that on a message board, like JWN, there are significant differences to what can be asked and answered between (sometimes) anonymous participants.

  Further there are self-imposed limitations on what can be offered as evidence and what may or may not be acceptable to the questioner, and to the wider JWN community.

  If a person decides to make an allegation in bad faith and then provides strong supporting evidence that has been assembled in bad faith eg fake emails etc, then where does that leave the questioner, and the community?

  If a person makes a 'true' allegation and then decides to withold certain pieces of evidence, then what status does his claim have?

  So - JWN'ers - what are your thoughts on 'real life' claims and what is acceptable to 'prove' them?
• 

  Perry

  Eye witness testimony fom the eye-witness himself is considered universally as good evidence, even proof. The Watchtower has befuddled the meaning of the term because as JW's we werent really witnesses of anything that Jehovah had done in our lives. I never went to one door and told the homeowner one thing that Jehovah had done in my life.

  Now, as a Christian, I could talk for probably an hour about the things God has done in my life and in the lives of my wife and children.
• 

  alanv

  Personally if I quote the society I always try to show where the quote came from. That way no one can say I lied or made it up. If possible I provide a link to make it easier for someone to find the source. Likewise if I quote a newspaper or commentator I will try to show who said it and when. Of course that does not mean it has been said accurately but it does show at least where the quote came from. In Ray Franz books he always showed where his quotes came from, so that anyone who doubted him could check for themselves.
• 

  punkofnice

  Where do we draw the line? What constitutes proof for individuals is probably more like 'confirmation bias'.

  Depends on our mindset.
• 

  cantleave

  Eye witness testimony fom the eye-witness himself is considered universally as good evidence, even proof.

  Eye witness evidence is completely unreliable.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
• 

  UnConfused

  If you want to believe, not much. If you don't want to believe, you never will.
• 

  Phizzy

  I reckon that all "proof" or evidence is suspect to a degree.

  It has been proven as Cantleave's post shows, that eyewitness accounts are unreliable, and it has been proven that our memory of events and happenings etc changes over time.

  So where does that leave us on here ? I think most posters on here tell the truth as they see it as to what has happened to them, so we can trust it up to a point, but we must recognise that it is their point of view, and that they may even have a hidden agenda, so salt and pinches comes to mind.

  Also, what some posters wish to submit as "proof", like Perry above, as "all the things that God has done in my life", are proof of nothing except Perry's long and dearly held beliefs.

  Just because you have held a belief for a long time, and held it dearly, that does not make it true.

  Things said on here really cannot carry much weight, but they are sufficiently acceptable, I hope, to lurking JW's, sufficient to make them investigate the claims made by their own religion, claims for which the proof is sorely lacking.
• 

  Vidqun

  In scientific research (esp. Medical) one looks for a"golden standard." When a new test is developed it is usually compared to a reliable test that have been proved to be accurate, i.e., a golden standard. For the detection of TB in body fluids, a good test to use is the Ziehl Neelson stain (relatively cheap and not too complicated, but might miss small concentrations of acid-fast bacilli). An alternative test is Immunofluorescent Microscopy which is more sensitive, but much more expensive. The latter I would use as a "golden standard" to test newer detection methods coming on the market.

  This principle I have applied to Biblical research. Base texts for the NT are numerous. But the latest Nestle-Aland (ed. 28) is an ideal reference point. Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia for the Hebrew is not perfect, but a good basis to work from. In time the finished products of BHQ and The Hebrew University Bible Project will supersede it as a study edition.

  Some books I view as a "golden standard" to establish the meaning of NT words:

  1) BDAG: Bauer-Danker Lexicon of NT

  2) TDNT: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

  3) Friberg Lexicon

  4) Liddell & Scott, etc.

  The "golden standard" for OT words:

  1) HALOT: Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

  2) TDOT: Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

  3) TWOT: Theological Wordbook of the OT

  4) Brown-Driver Briggs Lexicon

  5) Gesenius, etc.

  This is not a perfect system. Some of above works are quite dated. Kittel, resposible for some of the earlier articles of TDNT was a Nazi. Gesenius, again, had some rationalistic tendencies as pointed out by Tregelles in his translation of Gesenius' Lexicon. But at least it is a foundation to work on. So this is my starting point, right or wrong. One must start somewhere....
• 

  cofty

  Has a topic ever been derailed so swiftly?

  I tend to towards assuming good faith. I would rather be proved wrong by somebody letting me down than ascribe bad motive.

  There are exceptions. I suppose intuition plays a part.
• 

  Narcissistic Supply

  JW's are phonies. Whats so hard to understand???