Proofs and Refutations in Historical Jesus Research – Part 1
In “Proofs and Refutations”, the philosopher Imre Lakatos (pictured above) demonstrates how mathematicians and scientists deal with counterexamples that threaten their core theories. Instead of abandoning the theory (as Popper said they should), they use brilliant rhetorical and structural manoeuvres to protect the status quo. As I was reading mathematics at Exeter University, I came across both Popper and Lakatos as part of my set books.
I find Lakatos more compelling than Popper, as his “Proofs and Refutations” is actually both an interpretation and commentary on actual developments in parts of mathematical history.
I shall be using the model given in “Proofs and Refutations” to examine some current trends in historical Jesus and New Testament origins research. But first, let us start with a basic explanation of how this all works.
In “Proofs and Refutations”, the philosopher Imre Lakatos (pictured above) demonstrates how mathematicians and scientists deal with counterexamples that threaten their core theories. Instead of abandoning the theory (as Popper said they should), they use brilliant rhetorical and structural manoeuvres to protect the status quo. As I was reading mathematics at Exeter University, I came across both Popper and Lakatos as part of my set books.
I find Lakatos more compelling than Popper, as his “Proofs and Refutations” is actually both an interpretation and commentary on actual developments in parts of mathematical history.
I shall be using the model given in “Proofs and Refutations” to examine some current trends in historical Jesus and New Testament origins research. But first, let us start with a basic explanation of how this all works.
In Lakatos’s dialogue, a mathematician proposes a "proof" (a global conjecture), someone else hurls a "refutation" (a counterexample) at it, and instead of throwing the proof away, the community stretches, refines, and redefines their terms to accommodate the new reality.
Here are the four basic, foundational Lakatosian strategies people use to defend the status quo:
Monster-Barring (Excluding the Data)
This is the most aggressive defence. When faced with a counterexample that breaks your theory, you simply declare that the counterexample is a "monster" (a freak anomaly or invalid data point) that doesn't belong in the discussion. You don't change your theory; you just shrink the definition of what counts as real data.
• The Mathematics Example: A student defines a polyhedron as a solid bounded by plane faces. Someone presents a "cylinder" as a counterexample. The student responds: "A cylinder is a freak monster, not a real polyhedron! Real polyhedra must have straight edges. Therefore, my theory is still safe."
• The Real-World Equivalent: High-level political ideologues use this constantly. When shown a historical collapse of their preferred economic system, they will say: "Well, that wasn't real capitalism/socialism."
Exception-Barring (Ghettoizing the Data)
In this strategy, you acknowledge that the counterexample is real and valid, but you argue it is a minor, bizarre exception that doesn't impact your macro-theory. You draw a neat little boundary fence around the troublesome data, label it a "special case," and pass a law forbidding it from modifying your main rule.
• The Mathematics Example: A student states a rule that works for all shapes, but someone points out it fails for a star-shaped polygon. The student says: "Fine, my rule works for all normal shapes, except star-shaped ones. We will just ignore star-shaped ones for now."
• The Real-World Equivalent: A medical researcher has a theory that a drug is 100% effective. When a patient gets sick anyway, the researcher says: "The theory holds true for everyone, except patients with this one specific, rare genetic marker."
Monster-Adjusting (Reinterpreting the Meaning)
This is a highly sophisticated, linguistic magic trick. You do not change the words of your theory, and you do not throw away the counterexample. Instead, you redefine the words inside your theory so that the troublesome counterexample is magically transformed into proof that you were right all along.
• The Mathematics Example: If your theory requires a shape to have "edges," and a counterexample has a curved line, you simply broaden the definition of an "edge" to include curved lines. The monster is "adjusted" until it fits.
• The Real-World Equivalent: An astrologer predicts a client will have a "massively successful financial day." The client actually loses £50. The astrologer deploys monster-adjusting: "Ah, but losing that money taught you a valuable spiritual lesson about greed. True 'wealth' is spiritual, so my prediction came true!"
Lemma-Incorporation (Fixing the Blueprint)
This is the most constructive Lakatosian strategy and the one that actually drives human progress. Instead of flatly denying the counterexample, you use the counterexample to find a hidden, unstated assumption (a lemma) in your original proof. You then carefully modify your theory to absorb the shock of the counterexample, making the overall theory much more complex, nuanced, and resilient.
• The Mathematics Example: A student realizes their rule failed because they forgot to specify that the shape must be perfectly flat. They update the theory: "My rule works for all polyhedra, provided they are convex." The theory changes, but it grows stronger.
• The Real-World Equivalent: This is how actual scientific progress works. When Newton’s laws couldn't perfectly explain the weird orbit of Mercury, physicists didn't throw out Newtonian physics; they used Einsteinian relativity to incorporate the extreme exceptions of high-gravity environments into a larger, more robust blueprint of physics.
When we map Imre Lakatos’s four strategies onto the high-stakes battlefield of Gospel scholarship, we can see exactly why NT scholars and historical-Jesus researchers rarely change their minds.
Because the text of the Gospels is ancient, complex, and open to interpretation, it provides the perfect raw material for academics to build a "Protective Belt" around their core theories.
In my next posts, I will illustrate how biblical historians of the New Testament deploy the four basic Lakatosian strategies to defend their views against troublesome textual data.
Here are the four basic, foundational Lakatosian strategies people use to defend the status quo:
Monster-Barring (Excluding the Data)
This is the most aggressive defence. When faced with a counterexample that breaks your theory, you simply declare that the counterexample is a "monster" (a freak anomaly or invalid data point) that doesn't belong in the discussion. You don't change your theory; you just shrink the definition of what counts as real data.
• The Mathematics Example: A student defines a polyhedron as a solid bounded by plane faces. Someone presents a "cylinder" as a counterexample. The student responds: "A cylinder is a freak monster, not a real polyhedron! Real polyhedra must have straight edges. Therefore, my theory is still safe."
• The Real-World Equivalent: High-level political ideologues use this constantly. When shown a historical collapse of their preferred economic system, they will say: "Well, that wasn't real capitalism/socialism."
Exception-Barring (Ghettoizing the Data)
In this strategy, you acknowledge that the counterexample is real and valid, but you argue it is a minor, bizarre exception that doesn't impact your macro-theory. You draw a neat little boundary fence around the troublesome data, label it a "special case," and pass a law forbidding it from modifying your main rule.
• The Mathematics Example: A student states a rule that works for all shapes, but someone points out it fails for a star-shaped polygon. The student says: "Fine, my rule works for all normal shapes, except star-shaped ones. We will just ignore star-shaped ones for now."
• The Real-World Equivalent: A medical researcher has a theory that a drug is 100% effective. When a patient gets sick anyway, the researcher says: "The theory holds true for everyone, except patients with this one specific, rare genetic marker."
Monster-Adjusting (Reinterpreting the Meaning)
This is a highly sophisticated, linguistic magic trick. You do not change the words of your theory, and you do not throw away the counterexample. Instead, you redefine the words inside your theory so that the troublesome counterexample is magically transformed into proof that you were right all along.
• The Mathematics Example: If your theory requires a shape to have "edges," and a counterexample has a curved line, you simply broaden the definition of an "edge" to include curved lines. The monster is "adjusted" until it fits.
• The Real-World Equivalent: An astrologer predicts a client will have a "massively successful financial day." The client actually loses £50. The astrologer deploys monster-adjusting: "Ah, but losing that money taught you a valuable spiritual lesson about greed. True 'wealth' is spiritual, so my prediction came true!"
Lemma-Incorporation (Fixing the Blueprint)
This is the most constructive Lakatosian strategy and the one that actually drives human progress. Instead of flatly denying the counterexample, you use the counterexample to find a hidden, unstated assumption (a lemma) in your original proof. You then carefully modify your theory to absorb the shock of the counterexample, making the overall theory much more complex, nuanced, and resilient.
• The Mathematics Example: A student realizes their rule failed because they forgot to specify that the shape must be perfectly flat. They update the theory: "My rule works for all polyhedra, provided they are convex." The theory changes, but it grows stronger.
• The Real-World Equivalent: This is how actual scientific progress works. When Newton’s laws couldn't perfectly explain the weird orbit of Mercury, physicists didn't throw out Newtonian physics; they used Einsteinian relativity to incorporate the extreme exceptions of high-gravity environments into a larger, more robust blueprint of physics.
When we map Imre Lakatos’s four strategies onto the high-stakes battlefield of Gospel scholarship, we can see exactly why NT scholars and historical-Jesus researchers rarely change their minds.
Because the text of the Gospels is ancient, complex, and open to interpretation, it provides the perfect raw material for academics to build a "Protective Belt" around their core theories.
In my next posts, I will illustrate how biblical historians of the New Testament deploy the four basic Lakatosian strategies to defend their views against troublesome textual data.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment