ApostateAbe

Yeah, that would be a big problem--assigning probabilities to events in the unrepeatable foggy ancient past. That wasn't my first objection, but it is a good one. My first objection was that we can't objectively assign numerical probabilities to competing interpretations of evidence that is in essence subjective--written language. You would need to somehow justify the numbers that you assign to interpretations of disputed passages of text, and you can't do that the same way you can assign probabilities to medical conditions. I can't imagine how anyone would go about doing that, but maybe someone knows something I don't. There has been a lot of support for Richard Carrier's proposition in the forum of the past, and it is encouraging to see more opposition. It would be even more encouraging to see some kind of substantial demonstration of Bayes' Theorem applied to ancient history. I hate to think that the proposition is just as preposterous as it appears on the face.

Toto

Carrier contends that Baysian statistics is just a more rigorous method of describing the process of logical thinking, and that expressing arguments in Baysian terms will expose illogical statements and force us to tighten the logic of our statements.

I haven't gone through all of what he has written on the subject, but I think he has in mind the criterion of embarrassment, where historicists often talk about what is most probable in a vague an fuzzy sense.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, and I contend that the most rigorous method would be to unify the theories of modern physics, build a time machine, and go back to the time of Jesus to video record exactly what happened.

Doug Shaver

One possibility is that Detrano et al. discovered a fact that contradicts Bayes' Theorem.

Another possibility is that Detrano et al. used Bayes' Theorem incorrectly.

Doug Shaver

The key phrase there is "only by assuming." Yes, it is difficult, but it is effective when done right because it forces you to identify and confront your assumptions and then shows you something about how well those assumptions jibe with reality.

Doug Shaver

The difficulty lies in formulating a sensible notion of probability for unique occurrences. Obviously, for many historical issues -- especially the ones that we're most interested in because they're so controversial -- the relative frequency model of probability isn't going to work well.

ApostateAbe

That's cool, and I would agree with you, only I haven't even seen an attempt to apply Bayes' Theorem to ancient history as of yet, not even a bad attempt. Have you done it?

aa5874

What time of Jesus are you talking about? Do you have the slightest idea who Jesus was? Apologetic sources claimed he was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost and walked on water.

You don't need a time machine just "reciprocal expectations".

What would you EXPECT to video record when apologetic sources stated the mother of Jesus was WITH child of the Ghost?

I EXPECT a BLANK VIDEO.

What do you EXPECT, ApostateAbe!!!!???

"Reciprocal Expectations".

Doug Shaver

Not yet. For one reason, it would take way more time than I've had available for such exercises.

For another, whenever any issue of inductive reasoning comes up, I've been handicapped by a lack of formal training in that subject. I'll be starting to remedy that deficit in a couple of weeks.

(I've already taken three other courses from this professor, and I'm entirely satisfied that she knows her stuff. I'm keenly looking forward to taking this class.)

tanya

Howdy Doug, no, sorry to write that I think you missed my point, entirely.

The citation from Detrano et al was not haphazard, as it may have appeared.

They concluded that Bayes' Theorem (which they did employ properly) was very useful, in predicting the existence of significant coronary artery disease. They based that optimistic conclusion on the fact that Bayes' theorem accurately predicted the existence of disease in MOST patients PRIOR to their undergoing confirmation by coronary angiography.

My point then, was simple: Bayes' theorem is very useful in predicting probabilities where the consequence of error is outweighed by the larger quantity of cases in which the theorem yields predictions which turn out to be accurate. In the case of heart disease, of course, one would never rely upon Bayes' theorem, because it is imperfect.

More folks are accurately diagnosed, using Bayes' theorem, than are inaccurately diagnosed using Bayes' theorem, however, if one's coronary arteries are blocked, one must ascertain, with certainty, prior to surgery, the extent and nature of the blockage. Having a high probability is nifty, if one is betting at the racetrack, but not if one is betting one's life.

So, no, Detrano et al did not discover anything that disproves Bayes' theorem, if anything, on the contrary, they showed that it is quite useful in predicting heart disease. However, its reliability is insufficient to base a clinical decision on the outcome of this computation.

So, then the question arises, of what utility could employment of Bayes' theorem provide, investigators attempting to elucidate the origins of Christianity?

I reply to that question: NONE

Why? For me, and perhaps, singularly me, the probability that Irenaeus wrote xyz, or Clement of Rome wrote abc, is not interesting. I want to know, as with coronary artery disease, precisely, exactly, who wrote what, when.

Assigning a probability of 87% to the likelihood that the LAD is 100% obstructed, is fine, but if it is Sheshbazzar's LAD that is blocked, then, I want to know that fact, definitively, not probably. I require certainty, not likelihood. One needs to establish, before cutting, that the surgical approach proposed, to unblock LAD, will resolve Sheshbazzar's problem.

The history of Christianity's origin will not be revealed, no matter how many arithmetic manipulations are performed.

Excavation, supervised recovery, transparent, fully televised, archaeological inquiry, offers the key to learning the origins of Christianity. Put the mathematics books away. They are useless for this inquiry.