Henke 2022eu

Lundahl’s Erroneous Methodology for Investigating the Past as Seen in his Dismal Reponses to the Ten Questionable Saints of Jimenez (2014)

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

My methodology for investigating a claim about a past event or individual involves the following steps in the scientific method:

1. Skepticism about the claim. Again, skepticism is the default position (Henke 2022dv).

2. Look for evidence to support the claim and apply the method of the multiple working hypotheses (Strahler 1999, pp. 19-20).

3. Based on the quality of any available evidence, rank the probability of the claim on my scale in Henke (2022b)

4. Until evidence of miracles is demonstrated under strict and present laboratory conditions, any claim involving a miracle is initially ranked low, below one, but not at zero.

Based on his essays in this debate, the following appears to be Mr. Lundahl’s erroneous approach to evaluating claims about the past:

1. Just believe any claim in the Bible or any claim or tradition endorsed by conservatives in the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church.

2. Invoke the “earliest known audience” or “collective memory” scams to defend whatever he wants to believe.

3. Never accept anything that contradicts with his step #1, no matter how good the evidence is.

Throughout his tirade against the Jimenez (2014), Lundahl (2022n) totally fails to make “mincemeat” of Jimenez’ claims. Jimenez (2014) raised important questions about the validity of these saints that need to be further examined in the peer-reviewed literature. All Lundahl (2022n) could do is respond with groundless proclamations and reliances on the unreliable and centuries-old dogmatic beliefs that his Church tells him.

Reference:

Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2^nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.