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 read that and thought that meant ~h was defined to be premise 1 to 5, however, I am sure you can explain how that is not the case .JohanRonnblom wrote:There is no ¬h on page 53. I don't know if you're pretending to be stupid in order to find "errors", or if you're really not getting it.Tim Hendrix wrote: 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.
Once more you are changing what I am saying to suit your argument: I was not asking about a reduction in grade, I am was asking if using a mathematical operator different than how it was formally defined would be considered an error at your introductory mathematics course?JohanRonnblom wrote:It would definitely render a reduction in points, but since it does not affect the overall calculation in any way this reduction would be minor.Tim Hendrix wrote: One question though: I assume you have/are taking classes at a university, was that the standard that you were made familiar with in your introductory math course?
Curiously, it is you who are bringing up the layout issues. Anyway, I won't ask . I am sure your discussion of the layout issues is amongst the best in the business!JohanRonnblom wrote: I'm not interested in debating spelling errors or bad layout or whatever (...)
the layouting issues are simply much more relevant since they actually make the book significantly harder to understand.
Well I am not. Carrier can define his hypothesis however he chooses assuming it makes sense logically and he takes his own definition into account. Once again you are simply ascribing an absurd standpoint to me which you can heroically knock over, and you have been doing this over and over during this thread. It is amusing you follow this up with accusations of poor reading comprehension and stupidity.JohanRonnblom wrote: It seems to me that you are accusing Carrier of cheating because he has chosen sensible hypotheses to defend, thus making his case easier!
What you are mentioning is that we can think up new interpretations of existing evidence or (hypothetically) hope to dig up a new set of early documents (however when was the last time new documents arose that had an impact on historical Jesus studies?). But obviously, that is different than trying to estimate the probability of the sex of newborns where new babies are, literally, born every day and the frequency of their sexes can be used to check our model.JohanRonnblom wrote:How is that a difference in nature? True, it is rare that we find a stash of new documents such as the Nag Hammadi scrolls, Dead Sea scrolls etc. But it happens. But we also get new data from other discoveries such as people finding errors in a translation, scholars reaching a (near) consensus on some previously hotly debated topic, or a new line of argument that has previously not been used.Tim Hendrix wrote: Well, you write the difference in nature yourself in that quote: We have data (i.e. replicated observations) and we have the ability to perform experiments and validate the model by observing how it fit future data, and finally "actual outcomes" that can be observed.
A more pronounced difference, which you ignored, is that we have actual outcomes we can observe: We can in other words test if the predictions of a statistical model come to pass. For instance, if a model predicts there is a chance of 20% a given medicament will cure a disease, that can be compared against actual, observed outcomes by administering the medicament to a number of people and see what happens. We can then apply statistical tests (or compute credibility intervals) to quantitatively check the correctness of our predictions or alternatively, falsify our model.
Where are the actually observed outcome in the case of a historical Jesus? Without a time machine, we can't test the predictions of our model, making it effectively unfalsifiable in the usual quantitative sense. THAT is a difference in nature.
Did I ever write history was a useless subject? If I did not, how about stopping this endless and tiresome straw manning?JohanRonnblom wrote:If you don't believe this, then you are basically saying that history is a useless subject because we can never hope to make any progress. You seem to be implying that hypotheses in the subject of history are not, by nature, falsifiable.
I am questioning the applicability of Carrier's method to history, specifically how trustworthy the outcome is. The conclusion of that can't be that history is worthless which is simply a failure of elementary logic on your part.
What I claim is that Carrier's use of BT differs dramatically in nature to how BT is otherwise applied and that is worth taking into account when interpreting the specific numerical values Carrier obtains. See my above comment.
Let me get this straight: You yourself just claimed a moment ago that the gospels could be argued to provide evidence in favor of mythicism. Now you are saying they bear no relationship to the existence of Jesus similar to how arsenic and kittens are unrelated? Can't you see you are having it both ways?JohanRonnblom wrote: The probability that kittens etc would be cute given that arsenic is healthy, and the probability that they would be cute given that it is not healthy. To use anything else than 1 for these probabilities, we need arguments. Just as we need arguments to not use 1 for the probabilities you're complaining about. Bring such arguments, or stop complaining.
Well, to reiterate, I am claiming Carrier's method is sensitive to bias, as a simple numerical experiment will easily confirm (provided, of course, one defines bias as a perturbation to Carriers numbers and not simply to throw out all Carriers numbers and pull new ones out of the thin air).JohanRonnblom wrote:You are the one claiming that Carrier's method is somehow seriously flawed.Tim Hendrix wrote: You yourself believe that the upper and lower bounds disagree with respect to the gospels (i.e. your previous argument that the Gospels could be seen as providing evidence in favor of mythicism, "I also think that it is possible to conclude something using evidence from the Gospels..."). In conclusion, you are at the same time claiming that the upper and lower bounds agree and if I want to claim anything else I better damn well provide a bullet proof argument simultaneous asserting these limits disagree on your view. Now only is this shifting the burden of proof, it is a gigantic double standard.
Carrier's method is correct to not take arguments (such as mine) that he has no knowledge of into account. It could not possibly do that!
I then point out to a reader that Carrier assumes that the Gospels even on the most optimistic (in terms of historicity) assumption provides no evidence in favor of history insofar as Carrier is aware. I also point out that goes against what many other experts believe.
If the reader, therefore, detects some bias in Carrier she can go to the first point and see for herself how that might affect the overall conclusion.
Or another reader (such as yourself) can conclude Carrier has absolutely no bias at all and his numbers are all reasonable (except the prior or whatever). In that case, a discussion of bias is, of course, irrelevant to him.
It is you who keeps wanting to reduce what I have to say into right/wrong. I am for the most part trying to point out hidden assumptions Carrier makes or implications of his argument. For instance, his numbers assume that conditional on the Gospels and background evidence alone there is about a 95% chance Jesus did not exist. I think that is worth pointing out. If someone think that agrees with his intuition I have actually provided reasons for him to TRUST Carrier as at least being consistent with his intuitions.
I am curious: Do you actually believe I think such a method exists, or do you not believe I think such a method exist? If you don't believe I think such a method exists, I can't see how you can ask that question in good faith.JohanRonnblom wrote: But please start by describing your method that will lead to correct conclusions based on incorrect arguments.
The section illustrates the effect of Bias and the assumptions we must make on the magnitude of bias for the computation to be valid. This is true regardless of whether we believe there is such bias. Again, you are simply failing to understand the basic nature of what is being argued and what is not being argued.JohanRonnblom wrote: Oh why, he could just copy your Bob and Sue graph and be done! Because your whole argument is to assume, without evidence, that all the evidence will be biased.
I tried to illustrate how large that bias would have to be. It amazes me how you can't tell the different between such a statement and how you summarize it. It is equivalent to someone saying: "If the bridge is affected by winds of speed X then so-and-so will happen", and then summarize that as: "You just concluded that given the possibility of massive winds...". If you do not understand the difference I can't see why that is my fault.JohanRonnblom wrote: You have concluded that given the possibility that there could be massive bias,
Regarding your history-challenge. Before I go look: You want me to find a person with a Ph.D. or equivalent (a professor or other faculty member at a reputable university who is described as a historian will do I suppose?), who works with history and has published in history journals, who agrees with Ehrman Jesus existed?