Toto

Richard Carrier has announced that Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) will be published in April, 2012. It can be pre-ordered on Amazon.

This is the first volume of Carrier's study; the second will be On the Historicity of Jesus Christ.

David Deas

Richard Carrier isn't a mathematician. I don't understand how he's writing a book involving mathematical theorems.

Iskander

But he is one of ours!

Ingenuity Gap

What's stopping a non-mathematician from using mathematics in their own field? Math has applications outside math.

I'm pretty certain he's not trying to demonstrate any theorem, or propose a new one. He's just applying Bayes' Theorem to history. What's wrong with that?

Switch89

Here's an interview with Richard about the book:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...ier-about.html

David Deas

There is a tremendous difference between mathematical probability and subjective probability. Scientists use the former, while humanities scholars and laymen use the later. No Biblical historian has ever claimed that the historicity of Jesus, or that their belief in the historicity of Jesus was some sort of mathematical probability to begin with. Claiming that the words "likely" or "probably" automatically infer mathematical probability is just plain false.

youngalexander

Ta for the ref. Most interesting interview.

tanya

Hi IG, I am not certain of anything.

I would like to attempt to answer your question.

I will say up front:

a. I do believe that there is something seriously wrong, with seeking to apply Bayes' theorem to an analysis of the origins of Christianity.

b. I have never read anything by Richard Carrier. Sorry for that.

(Ignorance rarely inhibits my submitting an opinion to the forum!!!)

I am not going to attempt to explain Bayes' Theorem, there are many web sites to do that.

What I am going to illustrate, is an example, a straightforward example, from women's health, a subject that interests me, particularly, this specific example, breast cancer.

In this situation, Bayes' theorem can be useful in predicting probabilities of cancer, where a subsequent procedure, surgery, with microscopic confirmation of the cancer by the Pathologist, provides conclusive results.

Now consider how Carrier, or anyone else, studying the ancient manuscripts, will be able to apply Bayes' theorem, or any other mathematical construct.....

We cannot succeed. We lack the mammography data, upon which to base our conditional priors with studies of the ancient biblical manuscripts.

a. Patients WITH cancer, and a positive mammography result, versus Patients WITHOUT cancer, and a positive mammography result.

b. Patients WITH cancer, and a negative mammography result, versus Patients WITHOUT cancer, and a negative mammography result.

Now, let's look at something, VERY SIMPLE, (not Marcion, or Tertullian, or other patristic data, which is either mangled, or completely lost)

Look at Mark 1:1. Why? Well, there are three DIFFERENT versions of the same passage. Which one is correct?

The beginning of the good news about J.C.

The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ.

The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, son of God.

Why bother with this utterly simple verse? We don't want to confuse the issue. The issue is whether or not Bayes' theorem is applicable to New Testament Studies.

I deny that it can be employed.

This picture, from Mark 1:1, is analogous to three Radiologists arguing about the interpretation of my mammogram.

"malignant"

"possibly malignant"

"probably benign"

What should I do, in that setting? Lumpectomy? Wait and observe ("tincture of time"), radical mastectomy with lymph node resection?

Bayes' theorem does not embrace the scenario where there are three different radiological interpretations of the same data. That's not how it works. One must have CERTAINTY, regarding the conditional priors.

We don't even know which version of the gospels, represents the authentic version. How can we possibly apply Bayes' theorem to such cacophonic data?

How would you feel if I informed the forum that I intended to apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to a study of Codex Sinaiticus....

If someone wrote something that silly, I would think to myself, gosh, this person doesn't seem to understand much about Physics.

In brief, if we cannot establish the conditional priors, we cannot employ Bayes' theorem.....

youngalexander

Only if you are wedded to 'fuzzy' logic.

If a claim is 'likely' what the hell does that mean? How 'likely'? How 'probable'? Carrier is demanding that 'hand-waving' give way to a proper ordinal system of comparison, rather than vague descriptive verbiage.

aa5874

I think you have made an error. When one investigates any matter in the NT one does NOT isolate a single verse and use the very same verse as a resolution. Other sources are employed.

Now, if a patient develops cancer then we would NOT expect just one single sign or symptom.