Hi MrMacson,
Well, I was actually trying to fix some of the errors Andrew Criddle pointed out yesterday and there are definitely sections that could do with a re-write. Regarding your comment:
I think if you're trying to critique or understand Carrier's application of Bayes Theorem, or propose a simpler (non-compound) application of it, it would seem better to start with first principles and without some presuppositions you seem to have
.
I am not trying to propose an alternative application.. that would be far to ambitious and I know too little about the subject; asides, I have quite strong reservations if this type of numerical application to history even makes sense.
I am not sure what you have in mind when you mention "some presuppositions". On the Vridar thread, the main things I keep referring to are the basic rules of probability and textbook definitions of for instance reference classes, so I am not sure what you have in mind? Is it related to the quotes you provide by Zbykow?
Regarding the quotes, what happened in the discussion was that Zbykow says that we can just introduce a new proposition ~H (bare mythicism) and write a new Bayesian computation that used both ~h and ~H and this would solve certain issues I brought up with respect to the RR hero class. I asked Zbykow about what that computation was and I think he ducked the question a bit. I then tried to show how I believed that keeping ~h and ~H around (along with some other factors Zbykow had hinted should be in the computation) resulted in a very complicated expression. As part of that I defined:
~h = ~H . M
(where M is the additional elements of Carrier myth theory). Zbykow replied that the computation was wrong:
Your calculations look all kinds of wrong.
M is not difference between ~H and ~h, its what they have in common.
Which is a odd statement since M is just what I have defined it to be (or rather, the definition can be found in OHJ; it is Carriers own additional mythical elements found on p.55 of OHJ). Since my argument is just applying this definition and the rules of probability theory I can't see where the remark is supposed to take us. I tried pointing this out, and we went on a bit of a wild goose chase where Zbykow re-formulated the argument to be about sets (which one can!) and appeared to assume we had been talking about sets all along (OHJ and my review are formulated as being about logical propositions). In this light, he found a way to interpret what I had said as being wrong (I am not sure if this was intentional or if it is because Zbykow is confused about the two types of notation). None of this could affect the actual argument I gave which was about logical propositions and basic probability theory...
At any rate, I tried to explain this to Zbykow and get us back on track --why was my argument "all kinds of wrong" and what was the right argument-- but that was not possible at this point.
Regarding this comment by Zbykow:
What you really need is two runs of BT, one H vs. ~H, another ~h vs. what’s left of ~H, you could even combine them in one formula if you will, I’m not gonna bother.
I am simply curious about what that would look like exactly. My original post (above) was intended to show what I see as certain problems one gets into and why I think this computation is very different from what is in OHJ. To say that it is wrong and "I am not gonna bother" to show why or how it is done correctly is in my view quite lazy.
Even if Zbykow has decided it is not worth offering any arguments in support of his position I think as a minimum he should be prepared to state it. To simply say that one really need two runs of BT (which?) and then combine them (how?) is in my view simply failing to even state what one believes to be true.
Zbykow:
Reference classes work fine, we don’t normally believe in existence of RR heroes, unless there’s some evidence to the contrary, and this evidence is exactly what historicists fail to provide thus far.
You then seem to have a hang-up about Rank-Raglan b/c of an apparent red-herring about Josephus - the implication seems to be that, b/c Josephus texts mention Jesus (or other RR heroes?), then you don't think Rank-Raglan reference classes can be used??
Well, I am not launching an all-out attack on reference classes based on a pet theory or presupposition. I am pointing out that it is well-known that the use of reference classes involves arbitrariness (the reference class problem) and then I have raised certain specific issues with Carriers use of reference classes which is what is under discussion. To begin a reply with: "reference classes work fine" and a general remark about about RR heroes is not addressing the argument. To just state one of the issues again:
When we estimate the probability of p(A|B) based on reference classes, what we have in mind is the computation:
p(A|B) = (Number of elements that satisfy A and B)/(Number of elements that satisfy B)
Thus, when A = ~h, which includes being buried, and resurrected in the supernatural realm, this gives:
p(~h|RR) = (Number of heroes who satisfy the RR criteria AND did not exist AND died, was buried and resurrected in the supernatural realm AND …) / (Number of heroes who satisfy the RR criteria).
However what Carrier computes is this:
p(~h|RR) = (Number of heroes who satisfy the RR criteria AND did not exist) / (Number of heroes who satisfy the RR criteria).
In my opinion that's a pretty obvious issue and so far I don't think Zbykow has really addressed it..
Regarding Josepheus and the red herring, I assume you are referencing my review because I do not think I have discussed it yet on Vridar. My point was certainly not that because Josepheus mentions Jesus that invalidates the RR criteria. I do agree that the RR information is important and to my mind it plainly shows the Gospel writers were prepared to make up at the very least parts of the Gospels, or were writing down something others had made up.
My point was to illustrate what happens if we apply reference classes similarly to how it is done in OHJ but to another reference class, namely "Mentioned in our surviving Josephus manuscripts" (emphasis on "surviving"). I deliberately choose this class because it is very silly (OHJ argues that the passage is fully a modern interpolation and I assume this is true for this argument), but to my mind many of the arguments advanced in OHJ in defense of the RR hero class can be applied to the (silly) Josepheus class and I think this severely weakens the arguments. If you notice I write this several times in the review.
Regarding your second comment, of course I meant Jesus and not Carrier, thanks for pointing out this mistake!
. It should be: "information that places
[removed: Carrier] Jesus in the RR reference class". I don't want people to think I am advancing a Carrier-mythicist theory!
However I suppose that now where we have one written source who says Carrier satisfy the RR criteria (albeit possibly accidentally; however we can conclude this rarely happened for historical people, see p244 of OHJ for why this is a valid argument) I suppose an argument similar to OHJ would imply this is information that should be taken into account when computing the prior probability Carrier existed
.
<i>- you seem to be presupposing the Gospel are biography and 'born of a virgin' is biographical.</i>
Oh, I most certainly do not do that!
ps.: Sorry this reply was so long.