Well, all I can say is that the quote does not alter the fact that Carrier "assign ~h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5". What else is ~h assigned to? Carrier even acknowledges this is not technically correct in the very quote you cite, but provides an argument as to why he...

Interesting. I can only quote OHJ: "if I assign ~h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5". Hmm. Let's continue the quote: if I assign ¬ h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5, I can safely assume that h entails historicity (given my minimal definition of historicity...

he does not claim that ¬h is logically defined as his premises 1 to 5, but rather that plus a term that he claims can be ignored. Interesting. I can only quote OHJ: "if I assign ~h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5". I don't know if someone on the internet thinks those two ...

I am beginning to suspect this conversation is a bit of a waste of my time since you are just going over the same points again and again. Well, if you turn the page you will come to page 55 where Carrier writes: "I assign ~h to be the theory defined by Premises 1 through 5" . Stupid me, I ...

Once more you are simply ignoring what is actually in OHJ. As I already wrote: ~h is not simply "Jesus was a mythical person historicized", but rather "~h" is defined as the list of propositions in OHJ, p.53. By that definition "~h" is not the negation of h. There is n...

Moreover, I certainly would not recommend someone to read Carrier for learning about probability theory. In that case you should read a book written by an expert on that subject. When is a person considered an expert in your view? Carrier has written a book (Proving History) on applying probability...

An example of a formal error is when you use a mathematical symbol or rule different from it's definition. For instance, if I say that 2 + 2 = 5 that is a formal error because that is not how "+" is defined for integers. The negation of a proposition means something particular in Boolean ...

I think those are the kinds of perspectives which mainline historians (e.g. Ehrman) have treated as most credible. Ehrman is simply not an historian at all . He is a theologian by education, degree and publication history. Fair enough. I retract my use of the title, with apology. His assessment on ...

Well, I am aware that Carrier writes that. Here is the example I had in mind: Carrier defines h as the hypothesis that Jesus existed (OHJ, p. 30). Then ~h would (formally) be the logical negation of h, however in OHJ "~h" is defined as the list of propositions in OHJ, p.53. From a formal ...

Are you saying Carrier agrees that there is a formal error in OHJ? Where? Yes, just read his reply to me, but the issue is so obvious it hardly needs mentioning. I can't be bothered to read it in full, but a quick search reveals that he explicitly claims exactly the opposite: "[Hendrix' review...