Carrier's numbers and math in OHJ

[Bernard Muller]

Who has been able to understand Carrier's numbers and math in OHJ (pages 594- 601)?
Was it discussed in some blogs or other forums?

Cordially, Bernard

[cienfuegos]

Who has been able to understand Carrier's numbers and math in OHJ (pages 594- 601)?
Was it discussed in some blogs or other forums?

Cordially, Bernard

I've seen it discussed and will take a look at it again tonight. But the issue isn't about the math, per se, that's just quibbling. The issue is with the argument he lays out that justifies the numbers.

[Bernard Muller]

to cienfuegos,
I am not interested here & now about criticizing Carrier's input data (I did that already on most critical points).
But I do not understand how he got the input numbers and how he used that in his equations.
Nothing seems to fit. Humbly, it's beyond my understanding, but wait, I certainly do not consider myself as a math genius, far from that.
I wish Carrier took the trouble to explain more about all that, guide his readers step by step, explain about the symbol of his variables, even if that would take a few more pages.

Cordially, Bernard

[GakuseiDon]

The input numbers Carrier provides for his BT are his own subjective creations. But he admits this much himself, and he does invite readers to redo the math with their own estimates for each element, and to even add new elements if they think there is something Carrier has missed, though each new element must be independent of existing ones (page 600).

Carrier also writes on page 596:

• "Bayes's Theorem entails a concluding probability (the probability that Jesus existed) from estimating three other probabilities: (1) the prior probability that Jesus existed; (2) the probability of the evidence if Jesus did exist; and (3) the probability of that same evidence if Jesus didn't exist."

where:
(1) Prior Probability is calculated from Rank-Raglan scale
(2) and (3) are the probabilities Carrier has determined after evaluation of the following four elements:

• 1/ Evidence outside Biblical literature (e.g. Tacitus, Josephus, etc)
  2/ Evidence from Acts of the Apostles
  3/ Evidence from the Gospels
  4/ Evidence from the Epistles

IIUC, Bayes Theorem is the comparison of two hypotheses. It is testing the strength of one hypothesis against another. Carrier uses BT to test "minimal HJ" vs "minimal MJ".

Whether Carrier is using Bayes Theorem correctly or not I have no idea. I assume that he is. I'd never heard of it before seeing it introduced by Carrier. For myself, I don't have a problem with the subjective way he generates his numbers, since he lays out his evidence for each element and explains his reasoning (breaking evidence from Acts down into three sub-elements, for example). I think it is a good way to approach this topic, and I wouldn't be surprised if Carrier becomes reknowned for introducing BT into historical studies, even if his mythicist theory sinks.

[Peter Kirby]

Doubt it catches like wildfire. Most properly trained historians dislike math on principle.

[GakuseiDon]

There really isn't much math involved if I understand things correctly. The real issue will be trying to determine how much weight to assign to any one item: 30%? 40%? 80%? It's subjective, but I think arguable. But the big benefit is that users will need to spell out all their assumptions and the weights assigned to those assumptions. Carrier has done that for the mythicist side (and the historicist side for that matter). But we've yet to see it from the historicist side (Bernard Muller's comprehensive website aside). That's what needs to be done.

From what I can see, Bayes Theorem has been used to date by apologists like William Lane Craig and others on the probability for the existence of God and that the resurrection occurred. Naturally they arrive at probabilities much higher than 50%. That may well stop historians from taking it up.

BTW, here is Tim O'Neill's view on it: "What is your opinion on the use of Bayes' theorem as a tool to discover the best historical explanation for the data we have as outlined by Richard Carrier?"

[cienfuegos]

Doubt it catches like wildfire. Most properly trained historians dislike math on principle.

yep.

[cienfuegos]

to cienfuegos,
I am not interested here & now about criticizing Carrier's input data (I did that already on most critical points).
But I do not understand how he got the input numbers and how he used that in his equations.
Nothing seems to fit. Humbly, it's beyond my understanding, but wait, I certainly do not consider myself as a math genius, far from that.
I wish Carrier took the trouble to explain more about all that, guide his readers step by step, explain about the symbol of his variables, even if that would take a few more pages.

Cordially, Bernard

What you haven't done is proposed alternative numbers. Carrier examines the evidence and assigns the probability of the evidence being as it is under both historicist mythicist assumptions. He believes Paul's letters are exactly what you would expect if there were no Jesus (which I think is debateable and you have to accept mythicist arguments on some Pauline passages). He believes Paul's letters are not exactly what you would expect under historicism (which I think is true and acknowledged by many scholars). Based on those judgments he assigns relative numbers to that piece of evidence to arrive at the probability of each of the hypotheses being true. I do think, in this example, that Paul's letters are more like what one would expect on mythicist assumptions than on historicist assumptions.

This isn't precision math. Carrier makes no claim that it is. It's garbage in-garbage out. Your argument behind the numbers is the quality control that prevents garbage from going in. See? You can run numbers yourself, explain your numbers and let everyone pick it to pieces. That's the point.

[Leucius Charinus]

The input numbers Carrier provides for his BT are his own subjective creations. But he admits this much himself, and he does invite readers to redo the math with their own estimates for each element, and to even add new elements if they think there is something Carrier has missed, though each new element must be independent of existing ones (page 600).

Carrier also writes on page 596:

• "Bayes's Theorem entails a concluding probability (the probability that Jesus existed) from estimating three other probabilities: (1) the prior probability that Jesus existed; (2) the probability of the evidence if Jesus did exist; and (3) the probability of that same evidence if Jesus didn't exist."

where:
(1) Prior Probability is calculated from Rank-Raglan scale
(2) and (3) are the probabilities Carrier has determined after evaluation of the following four elements:

• 1/ Evidence outside Biblical literature (e.g. Tacitus, Josephus, etc)
  2/ Evidence from Acts of the Apostles
  3/ Evidence from the Gospels
  4/ Evidence from the Epistles

Thanks for that G'Don.

If each new element must be independent of existing ones, does that imply that ...

• 1/ Evidence outside Biblical literature (e.g. Tacitus, Josephus, etc)
  2/ Evidence from Acts of the Apostles
  3/ Evidence from the Gospels
  4/ Evidence from the Epistles

are being considered as independent elements?

Are the gospels, acts and epistles really independent? IDK

Or is it being considered that these 4 elements are a way of dividing up ALL the literary evidence?

Thanks



LC

[John T]

In a nut shell; Carrier's Theorem is: The probability of x being true is equal to how much you want it to be true.

You assign the value of X based how strongly you feel about the evidence and then plug in subjective numbers as if they were objective numbers according to Carrier's chart of formulation and wallah, you proved that Jesus never existed.

It's a miracle!

John T