"Than why does said Mr. Carrier assume that (1) we should believe what he writes (especially since it is at odds with what much better scholars than him are saying) (2) his treatment of the sources is piss poor and (3) he is not an expert in mathematics or history of early Christianity."
1. Because he's writing about ancient history and he has a PhD in ancient history, so he's a better scholar than anyone else who doesn't have a PhD in ancient history.
2. No it isn't, because, again, he has a PhD in ancient history. I'm guessing you don't, so you're not qualified to judge.
3. He doesn't need to be an expert in mathematics to write a book on ancient history, and he IS an expert in the history of early Christianity.
]]>Careful - you're exhibiting the academic equivalent of "plumber's crack" - i.e. your bias is showing.
]]>I'm sorry your argument was misrepresented, but the more important question to me is whether Bayesean probability is the appropriate tool for determining whether it is more or less likely than not that a given person existed. I know reading the book would probably be a good way to answer that question, but if you can give me enough of a spoiler to make it seem less likely than not that reading the book is a waste of time, I'd feel better about doing that.
]]>I would add that a certain Richarg carrier claimed in his books:
" “To laypeople who ask me what history to trust, I always offer three basic rules: (1) Don’t believe everything you read; (2) always ask for the primary sources of a claim you find incredible; and (3) beware of scholars who make amazing claims about history but who are not experts in the period, or aren’t even experienced historians at all. That three-step guideline provides a basic inoculation against most bad history” "
Than why does said Mr. Carrier assume that (1) we should believe what he writes (especially since it is at odds with what much better scholars than him are saying) (2) his treatment of the sources is piss poor and (3) he is not an expert in mathematics or history of early Christianity.
Thank you for telling us why we should ignore your work.
]]>"Such expertise is not needed. Bayes' Theorem is simply the mathematical model for the arguments historians are already making"
And that is why your latest books are huge failures.
A 10 year old can grasp Bayes' Theorem, yes, it's not in itself hard mathematics, BUT it is clearly (and I think all who know a bit of math agree!) one of those theorems that are easy to understand but incredibly difficult to apply, especially in "soft sciences" like history.
To note that most of your arguments in the book are fallacious, false or at best strained... and you use them to build up some arbitrary values to do then the final calculation.
But the final calculation is something that a kid who learned multiplication can do, yet truly building up the probabilities is something that you are not competent in, both historically and mathematically.
If you had learned ANYTHING about Bayes theorem is the huge discussion that revolves around it. Not its mathematical rigor and validity, which is easily proven, but rather the application and various epistemological considerations. In fact there is more than one school of though on how to apply the theorem and the theorem has some opposition too (mainly from frequentists, but not only)
But don't believe me, here is a mathematician who clearly show your work is nonsense::
https://irrco.wordpress.com/20...
And here ans astronomer (yes they know math):
https://letterstonature.wordpr...
which sums your work perfectly:
"What Carrier says about probability is at odds with every probability textbook (or lecture notes) I can find. He rejects the foundations of probability laid by frequentists (e.g. Kolmogorov’s axioms) and Bayesians (e.g. Cox’s theorem). He is neither, because we’re all wrong – only Carrier knows how to do probability correctly. "
Git gud, you are welcome
]]>Well with all the ridiculous arguments you made in the last 10 years we can just call it even?
]]>
