mountainman

Dear J-D,

I will let you think about this a little more. Hopefully next year we can discuss it again. You may have been able to find a copy of Robert Lane-Fox by that time.


Best wishes


Pete

J-D

Do you reckon there's any chance you'll be able to produce any evidence for your views next year, when for so long you have been unable to do so?

Doug Shaver

No. I'm saying that neither Porphyry nor anybody else of that age knew anything about statistics.

mountainman

Dear Doug,

Are you saying that these people had no notion of the idea of four parts in five as a distinct numerical distribution that was different from zero, or one, or two, or three, or five parts in five?

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

No, I'm not saying that.

Are you saying that anyone who understands what four-fifths means is a statistician?

mountainman

Dear Doug,

Anyone who understands the concept of the numerical proportion of four parts in five obviously understands some of the rudiments of statistics and while it is quite evident that they were not known by the name of statisticians, they were known as mathematicians and much, if not all, of the rudimentary knowledge which these guys preserved is still with us. Perhaps a classic example is the use the Pythagorean theorem in Special (and thus in General) Relativity. Was Pythagoras a physicist? In these modern terms perhaps he was not ---- however that he was a mathematician (and Euclid a geometrician preserved by Porphyry) cannot be denied.

Give the ancients the credit they deserve. We may have formalised the discipline of mathematics into pure, statistical and applied mathematics in recent centuries, but these are names only of collections of mathematical concepts and notions which were known --- if only in rudimentary terms --- to the ancients in one form or another by different names.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Regardless of how much people in antiquity did or did not understand of what is now known as 'statistics', there is no basic concept in statistics of 'four parts in five' 'with respect to the relative corroboration of a series of independent witnesses to a series of events'. There is no statistical, mathematical, logical, empirical, evidential, or rational connection between the concept of 'four parts in five' and the concept of 'relative corroboration of a series of independent witnesses to a series of events'. There isn't now, there wasn't in antiquity, and nobody thinks or ever has thought that there is or was. Except you, perhaps.

Doug Shaver

There is nothing obvious about it. Four-fifths is a fraction. Fractions are not among the rudiments of statistics. It is among the prerequisites, but a prerequisite is not a rudiment.

I'm not objecting to your anachronistic label. You can call them whatever you want, for all the difference it makes to the credibility of your assertion about what they knew.

That's just it. The historical record is pretty good with regard to the progress of mathematical knowledge. You are asserting that the ancients knew certain things about statistics. Anyone fairly familiar with the actual history of mathematics can very confidently assert that you are quite mistaken in that assertion.

I can't even guess how you think that could support your claim. The Pythagorean theorem (and every other mathematical concept) is nothing but a tool used by physicists and other scientists. You might as well suggest that anybody who knows how to use a hammer should be considered a carpenter.

I'll decide what they deserve according to the evidence. There is no evidence that they knew what you're claiming they knew.

That's for you to prove. According to my reading of the history of mathematics -- and I've read a helluva lot more about it than most non-mathematicians -- the work of statisticians in recent centuries has not just been the formalization and refinement of ancient knowledge. It was the development of new knowledge, stuff that the mathematicians of Eusebius's time could not have even imagined. If you have evidence to the contrary, then post it here so we can all see it.

mountainman

Dear Doug,

We are here trying to imagine what was in the mind and the politics of the ancients, not to depreciate their abilities. Do you have any idea what an aliquot part is?


Were the gospels going to agree with each other in zero parts in five, or in one or in two parts in five or even three parts in five? No of course not, they were more certainly in agreement than that! There was far more agreement than disagreement. The ratio of agreement was four parts in five, since nobody in their right mind would believe four gospels exactly the same having agreement in the ratio of five parts to five. The Eusebian canon tables demonstrate an agreement between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John of four parts in five. Did I mention statistical mathematics?

I reduced it to a choice. Supposing you had to fabricate four independent eyewitness accounts of a figure, either historical or fictional, and you were given a choice in how the four independent testimonies agreed.

Would you have them agree in zero parts in five?
Would you have them agree in one part in five?
Would you have them agree in two parts in five?
Would you have them agree in three parts in five?
Would you have them agree in four parts in five?
Or would you have them agree in five parts in five?


Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Hi Pete - if I were going to forge a new religion, I would have them agree 100% where they overlapped, with each containing some special unique material.

The idea that eyewitness testimony is never exactly the same is a very, very modern one, possibly even newer than the subject of statistics.

The four gospels do not show evidence (whether real or intentionally forged) of four different witnesses, but of four different theological positions, indicating that the canon was formed as a political compromise between several theological factions (there are 4 gospels because 4 was a magic number, but one might have been thrown in to bring the number up to 4). This would indicate that Christianity evolved over time up to the formation of the canon, and was not created in the 4th century.