aa5874

You have already ADMITTED and CONFIRMED what is wrong with your post.

Did you or did you not just post, "I am not an expert in Bayesian analysis?

My suspicions are NOW confirmed.

Have a nice day.

tanya

Hi Andrew,

I too, am not an expert. (in anything!!)

Let's take a glance at what you have written, to see if there could be something that could be modified, "to prevent that murmur" (Milton):

1. How do we ascertain whether or not Bayes' theorem has been "neglected"?

2. Have you an illustration showing how application of Bayes' theorem "genuinely helped resolve controversies"? (I do not.)

3. How does one elaborate the "real possibilities", in seeking to "correct human intuitive tendencies"?

4. "...but a Bayesian analysis Could make one very cautious."

How does application of Bayes' theorem assist us in deciding which of the three, extant, Greek versions of Mark 1:1, if any, represents the original verse?

Answer: It does not assist us in that endeavor. If we cannot distinguish a malignant lesion from a benign lesion, should we be touting the technique?

Is it sufficient to argue that, there is a greater likelihood, based upon application of Bayes' theorem, (using mammography results) of the Pathologist discerning exclusively benign cells in the needle biopsy specimen, than of his/her discovering a preponderance of malignant cells? Based upon such an analysis, would you then suggest to the person who had undergone the mammography and the subsequent Bayes' analysis, that the needle biopsy step was irrelevant, and a waste of time and money, because BAYES' theorem predicted that there was a very low probability of cancer?

andrewcriddle

The only substantial discussion of Bayes theorem in works on historical methodology known to me is in Justifying historical descriptions by C. Behan McCullagh. (There are doubtless others but I haven't done a search.) McCullagh takes the position that although in theory valid and important the theorem is, in practice, of little use to historians.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

That's my gut reaction too, so I will be extremely interested in reading Carrier's work.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

Please do a thorough search before you make self-serving statements.

Iskander

You were asked to explain what is wrong with his [Andrew] post.[#30]

mountainman

Hi Andrew,

Here's my 2c's worth.

Carrier via Bayes theorem seems to have already been helpful in exposing the list of "Yesteryear Historicity Criteria" (such as the 'Criterion of Embarrassment) as essentially illogical. AFAIK a number of other scholars had also been previously working in this area, Carrier seems to have formalised a Bayesian version of their arguments. In this context I see the use of Bayes theorem to formalise the "disproof" of the prior reliance on these historicity criteria.


I see the Bayesian analysis as an analysis tool. The object of analysis is the evidence items themselves - or rather - the hypotheses that the investigator will provisionally associated with the evidence items. Not one skerrick of evidence in the field of BC&H will be changed by the use of Bayesian analysis, but it will force the anyone using it (such as Carrier) to critically examine all the underlying hypotheses in the field about the evidence.

It has already been used to assist in exposing prior illogical criteria, so there is really no saying what it may uncover next.




He may do what you suggest above. However he may not take that approach. When I read between the lines of his comments I see that his approach may be one that examines the balance between the two hypotheses h and ~h above. IOW the examination may be one of relative probabilities. But I am only guessing.



You may be speaking only for those who consider themselves "Biblical Historians". Until demonstrated otherwise, Carrier is not a Biblical Historian, but in fact an ancient historian. The Biblical Historians, according to Momigliano's ironic quip, are the INSIDERS, while the ancient hisorians are the OUTSIDERS. Carrier may induce other ancient historians to speak their mind. I dont expect that anyone could convert the converted.



Carrier's work has already turned the spotlight on the demise of the "Historicity Criteria". The arguments for and against the historicists position use the SAME EVIDENCE. The difference in positions may be clearly reflected in the fact that different hypotheses will be associated with the same evidence items.

I will be interested to see how Carrier handles the evidence. Since he has written quite strongly about Eusebius as either a liar or hopelessly credulous I imagine he will devise some mechanism by which the sources themselves may be tested for corruption.


Best wishes



Pete

aa5874

The guy already admitted that he was NOT an Expert on Bayesian analysis, in other words, he don't really know what he is talking about with respect to Bayesian.

Toto

Your lack of fluency in English is apparent. Saying that you are not an expert is NOT the same thing as saying you don't know what you are talking about.

Andrew Criddle might just be modest. He might know a great deal, but not consider himself an expert because he does not have an advanced degree in the subject.

There is no requirement to be an expert before you say something correct, or meaningful.

So you have FAILED to show anything wrong with Andrew's post in #30.

aa5874

Well, I don't really know where you learned your English but Andrew Criddle has admitted that he is NOT an expert in Bayesian analysis which SATISFIES my observation.