Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 05-24-2012, 12:31 AM

And more on "Internet commenter Fisher"'s article: I was hoping for some substantive criticism of Carrier's suggestion of using Bayes' theorem, the article's subtitle is after all: "trickery, dickery Bayes", but this is all she has to say, and the first paragraph really says nothing substantive:

Quote:

Carrier uses this in a discussion which he calls ‘A Bayesian Analysis of the Disappearing Sun.’[2] This is the story that ‘there was darkness all over the land from the sixth hour until the ninth hour’ (Mk 15.33//Matt. 27.45//Lk 23.44-5). Critical biblical scholars have known for a long time that this story is not literally true.[3] Carrier’s discussion adds nothing significant to this discussion. Carrier includes the completely irrelevant notion that there might have been similar three-hour darkness in 1983, which we all know is false too. Carrier concludes that ‘Instead of letting us get away with vague verbiage about how likely or unlikely things are, Bayes’ theorem forces us to identify exactly what we mean. It thus forces us to identify whether our reasoning is even sound.’[4] Carrier’s discussion shows that this is not what happens. He tries to make it seem plausible by ignoring all the best critical scholarship, and discussing methodologically inadequate, ideologically-motivated pseudo-scholarship instead.

Most analysts would say that Bayes’ theorem is not in the least amenable to complex and composite historical texts. Carrier has too much misplaced faith in the value of his own assumptions. He claims, “[Bayes'] conclusions are always necessarily true — if its premises are true. By ‘premises’ here I mean the probabilities we enter into the equation, which are essentially the premises in a logical argument.”[5] Bayes theorem was devised to ascertain mathematical probability. It is completely inappropriate for, and unrelated to historical occurrence and therefore irrelevant for application to historical texts. Carrier doesn’t have a structured method of application, but worse, he is dealing with mixed material, some of which is primary, much of which is secondary, legendary, myth mixed accretion. He has no method, and offers none, of distinguishing the difference and this renders his argument a complete muddle. Effectively in the end, he can conveniently dispose of inconvenient tradition, with a regrettable illusion that Bayes provides a veneer of scientific certainty to prior conclusions he is determined to ‘prove unarguable’.

Steven Carr · 05-24-2012, 12:38 AM

Maurice Casey says it is 'ludicrous' for Doherty to put the Testament of Solomon in the first century.

Why is it ‘ludicrous’ of Doherty to put Testament of Solomon in 1st century AD?

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity...tures/harding/

‘He comments that ‘the lingering suspicion that the Testament might be medieval is no longer tenable’, and that ‘there is general agreement that much of the testament reflects first-century Judaism in Palestine’ (Duling, APOT I p.942).’

dog-on · 05-24-2012, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

And more on "Internet commenter Fisher"'s article: I was hoping for some substantive criticism of Carrier's suggestion of using Bayes' theorem, the article's subtitle is after all: "trickery, dickery Bayes", but this is all she has to say, and the first paragraph really says nothing substantive:

Quote:

Carrier uses this in a discussion which he calls ‘A Bayesian Analysis of the Disappearing Sun.’[2] This is the story that ‘there was darkness all over the land from the sixth hour until the ninth hour’ (Mk 15.33//Matt. 27.45//Lk 23.44-5). Critical biblical scholars have known for a long time that this story is not literally true.[3] Carrier’s discussion adds nothing significant to this discussion. Carrier includes the completely irrelevant notion that there might have been similar three-hour darkness in 1983, which we all know is false too. Carrier concludes that ‘Instead of letting us get away with vague verbiage about how likely or unlikely things are, Bayes’ theorem forces us to identify exactly what we mean. It thus forces us to identify whether our reasoning is even sound.’[4] Carrier’s discussion shows that this is not what happens. He tries to make it seem plausible by ignoring all the best critical scholarship, and discussing methodologically inadequate, ideologically-motivated pseudo-scholarship instead.

Most analysts would say that Bayes’ theorem is not in the least amenable to complex and composite historical texts. Carrier has too much misplaced faith in the value of his own assumptions. He claims, “[Bayes'] conclusions are always necessarily true — if its premises are true. By ‘premises’ here I mean the probabilities we enter into the equation, which are essentially the premises in a logical argument.”[5] Bayes theorem was devised to ascertain mathematical probability. It is completely inappropriate for, and unrelated to historical occurrence and therefore irrelevant for application to historical texts. Carrier doesn’t have a structured method of application, but worse, he is dealing with mixed material, some of which is primary, much of which is secondary, legendary, myth mixed accretion. He has no method, and offers none, of distinguishing the difference and this renders his argument a complete muddle. Effectively in the end, he can conveniently dispose of inconvenient tradition, with a regrettable illusion that Bayes provides a veneer of scientific certainty to prior conclusions he is determined to ‘prove unarguable’.

I do not think that Fisher has demonstrated any understanding of Bayes Theorem itself. Not sure why she thought she could even begin to address Carrier's actual argument.

In the end she does not come off well at all.

2-J · 05-24-2012, 05:13 AM

A comment on the Stephanie Louise Fisher article by Fisher herself:-

Quote:

Yes it does matter if someone has deconverted from some form of fundamentalist belief in which they held convictions without argument or evidence. Nobody can approach problems in life with pure objectivity. We are human beings who necessarily begin and continue our lives within some kind of social framework and we are shaped by our environments life experiences.

This appears to deny the possibility of objectivity in scholarship altogether. It's a trivial observation but I'll make it anyway - this would imply that Fisher et al can be no more objective than an ex- or current fundamentalist.

Grog · 05-24-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

STEPHANIE FISHER
Cohn was a German Jew who emigrated to Israel, where he became Attorney General of Israel, and Minister of Justice, as well as a member of the Supreme Court of Israel and the International Court of Justice in the Hague. He was a member of the “T’hila” Movement for Israeli Jewish secularism. It is culturally ludicrous to expect anyone like Cohn to give a fair account of a New Testament narrative, especially one which has played such an appalling role in the history of Christian anti-Semitism.

CARR
Is Stephanie Louise Fisher really claiming that it is ludicrous to expect a Jewish scholar to be objective about Christianity?

Probably not, since she later says:

Quote:

Carrier follows the religious bias of amateurs as greedily as he does his own mistaken prejudices, rather than relying on competent Jewish scholars such as Amy-Jill Levine, Paula Fredriksen and Geza Vermes,....

But what is this "appalling role" in "the history of Christian anti-Semitism" that Cohn played? Claiming that the Jews didn't kill Jesus?

To be fair, the "appalling role" refers back to the "New Testament narrative," in this grammatically convoluted sentence. Still, the idea that Cohn can't be objective due to his ethnicity and personal history is absurd. And, yes, Fisher later contradicts herself by referring to good Jewish scholars. The benchmark here is if Fisher agrees with someone, they are worthy of respect as a scholar. If she does not, she will find something to disqualify their views, even playing the ethnic card. I found it beyond the pale, stunningly crass and insensitive.

I am astounded by the level of personal villification that pours forth from Casey and Fisher. Their credentials as scholars aside, they have very much revealed the quality of their personalities. I wouldn't have a beer with them at the local pub. Hoffmann, after his initial ludicrous foray, has calmed down now and even makes some sense.

Grog · 05-24-2012, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

And more on "Internet commenter Fisher"'s article: I was hoping for some substantive criticism of Carrier's suggestion of using Bayes' theorem, the article's subtitle is after all: "trickery, dickery Bayes", but this is all she has to say, and the first paragraph really says nothing substantive:

I do not think that Fisher has demonstrated any understanding of Bayes Theorem itself. Not sure why she thought she could even begin to address Carrier's actual argument.

In the end she does not come off well at all.

I think she's intimidated and feels threatened by it. Her response appears to be fight or flight.

Grog · 05-24-2012, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

A comment on the Stephanie Louise Fisher article by Fisher herself:-

Quote:

Yes it does matter if someone has deconverted from some form of fundamentalist belief in which they held convictions without argument or evidence. Nobody can approach problems in life with pure objectivity. We are human beings who necessarily begin and continue our lives within some kind of social framework and we are shaped by our environments life experiences.

This appears to deny the possibility of objectivity in scholarship altogether. It's a trivial observation but I'll make it anyway - this would imply that Fisher et al can be no more objective than an ex- or current fundamentalist.

There is no true objectivity in scholarship. The very same argument that Stephanie uses can be turned back against her. How many NT scholars were at least at one time, if not now, Christians? How many turned to a study of Christian origins because of their fascination with the character of Jesus himself? Their whole lives have been immersed in this study, which probably did not begin with questioning the initial assumption of whether or not Jesus existed. Casey, at some point in his graduate school or undergrad experience, decided to become an expert in Aramaic. If you are going to be an expert in Aramaic, you are going to produce theories that make being an expert in Aramaic relevant to your discipline.

I have been through two master's programs and am currently a doc student. I have seen, time and again, students mold their personal views and arguments to match what they consider to be marketable views, views that will make them relevant in the marketplace, views that are not going bring wrath down on them from their doc advisor. It does not happen or when it does, the doc student is literally screwed. (Maybe someone has done a study on this, if not, it would be very interesting to do!)

I am not suggesting that, in Casey's case, one should not become an Aramaist because it will taint your objectivity. I am making a general statement about objectivity in scholarship. It does not exist. It is something to guard against. In Casey's case, if you read reviews of his work, you will find that it is generally well-received, but in review after review, he is cautioned about overstating his evidence. That is where Casey's achilles heel is.

"Objectivity" and "Truth" are ideals we strive for. No person can possibly achieve them.

hjalti · 05-24-2012, 07:17 AM

Quote:

To be fair, the "appalling role" refers back to the "New Testament narrative," ...

Of course! :Cheeky:

aa5874 · 05-24-2012, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...."Objectivity" and "Truth" are ideals we strive for. No person can possibly achieve them.

If that is your view then why are you posting???

We might as well stop all invesigation of the past events. We can shut down the court system.

Everyday ordinary people re-construct the past using the DATA that is presented.

That is the fundamental problem. People IGNORE the evidence and superimpose their imagination and then become Angry and frustrated when their position is REJECTED.

Why do people ASSUME gMark was written in the 1st century when there is ZERO evidence for such a claim???

Ehrman himself states that Mark is a FALSE attribution.

Why do people ASSUME gMark is history when it states Jesus WALKED on water in full view of his disciples and later Transfigured???

gMark in any language, Aramaic or Greek, is NOT history.

This is the problem. People IGNORE the evidence and then claim the truth will NOT ever be known.

Only The Evidence can tell us the TRUTH.

There was NO Jesus, disciples and Paul in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Look at the evidence and you will see the TRUTH. There are OVER 100 dated New Testament manuscript and none from the 1st century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Casey should understand that ORDINARY people use credible EVIDENCE, credible sources, to find out the truth.

gMark is NOT a credible historical source in Aramaic and is NOT dated to the 1st century.

2-J · 05-24-2012, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...."Objectivity" and "Truth" are ideals we strive for. No person can possibly achieve them.

If that is your view then why are you posting???

We might as well stop all invesigation of the past events. We can shut down the court system

I have to agree with aa for once... if there is no possibility of achieving objectivity then we might as well all go home right now.

The whole supposed force of bringing up that someone is an atheist or a fundamentalist etc (not that I agree with this line of argument, since I think arguments should be assessed on their own merits) is to cast doubt on that person's objectivity. But if objectivity is something nobody can achieve (as Fisher seems to suggest in the comment I quoted) then there is no force in the criticism. The fundamentalist lacks objectivity but so too, equally, does Fisher.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-24-2012, 12:38 AM	#52
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Maurice Casey says it is 'ludicrous' for Doherty to put the Testament of Solomon in the first century. Why is it ‘ludicrous’ of Doherty to put Testament of Solomon in 1st century AD? http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity...tures/harding/ ‘He comments that ‘the lingering suspicion that the Testament might be medieval is no longer tenable’, and that ‘there is general agreement that much of the testament reflects first-century Judaism in Palestine’ (Duling, APOT I p.942).’

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.