Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:

Actually, Carrier could have added a fifth element "Rank/Raglan" (the PRIOR ODDS = 1/2) to Exhibit 3 under "Consequent Probability on Minimal Historicity (h)" and the overall results will be exactly the same than he has on page 599 (Exhibit 1), that is 1/2.09931123542524 for odds and about 32% for probability.

Carrier himself mentions this very fact at least once in his book (and, if I remember right, more than once), i.e.:

Background probability considerations can be either used for background probability, or under consequent probabilities, but not both.

Either use turns out to arrive at the same result.

I am now fully convinced that the equation in Exhibit 1 is truly a Bayes theorem and correct at that (without looking at the input numbers!)
And it makes sense that the Consequent odds are fully dependent on the Prior odds, and that should be taken in account when calculating the overall result of odds.

But I still do not see why Consequent odds for ACTS are fully dependent on the Consequent odds of EXTRA, and that should be taken in account when calculating the overall result of odds of ACTS combined with EXTRA. That still does not make any sense, even less now than any time before.
And worse, it seems Carrier did not realize he was using Bayes theorems in his calculations about Consequent odds, where every element is dependent on the other ones.

It seems to me there were two different Carriers working on these calculations.

Carrier himself mentions this very fact at least once in his book (and, if I remember right, more than once), i.e.:

Background probability considerations can be either used for background probability, or under consequent probabilities, but not both.

Either use turns out to arrive at the same result.

And can you tell me the pages number (if in OHJ)?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: I am now fully convinced..................

Whatever.

Bernard Muller wrote:And can you tell me the pages number (if in OHJ)?

"The information that we use to identify the narrowest reference class for which we have usable frequency data is information we must then move from e into b (from evidence into background knowledge), and therefore we cannot bring it up again when asking about consequent probabilities later. But as long as we obey that rule, the outcome will remain logically valid, and that's all we need." - On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 238

"It won't really matter what you start with to determine prior probability, however, because whatever you don't use for that will become a part of e (the evidence) anyway, which you will then have to deal with later, and when you do you will get the same mathematical result regardless." - On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 239

To Peter,

"The information that we use to identify the narrowest reference class for which we have usable frequency data is information we must then move from e into b (from evidence into background knowledge), and therefore we cannot bring it up again when asking about consequent probabilities later. But as long as we obey that rule, the outcome will remain logically valid, and that's all we need." - On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 238

"It won't really matter what you start with to determine prior probability, however, because whatever you don't use for that will become a part of e (the evidence) anyway, which you will then have to deal with later, and when you do you will get the same mathematical result regardless." - On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 239

For your quote from page 238, that's all about the prior probability. Nothing here about calculating consequent odds or probabilities.

However your quote from page 239 seems to suggest that elements of prior probability can be introduced in some consequent probabilities. How? I do not know. But once again, how to calculate the ensemble of consequent odds or probabilities is not indicated.

And I also note Carrier makes a clear distinction between prior and consequent probabilities in OHJ pages 238-239):
In a sound Bayesian formula, prior probability is based on the general expectations produced by our background knowledge, as distinct from what we consider the evidence that needs to be explained by our hypothesis.

But the consequent odds are related with each other, the same as the prior odd with the consequent odds (by multiplications). In other words, the consequent odds are considered just like some other prior odds.

Cordially, Bernard

Cool story, bro.

to Peter,
Shall I consider your comments of "whatever" and "cool story bro" as equivalent of "no contest"?

Cordially, Bernard

It means that I should start charging by the minute if you require more math lessons.

to Peter,

It means that I should start charging by the minute if you require more math lessons.

And your math lessons would say a prior odd is just like a consequent odd, and a consequent odd is just like a prior odd and all of them should interact with each other by multiplications in order to provide the final odd value.
I am not interested by this kind of math.

Cordially, Bernard

So, bottom line. What's your point? Are you saying that Carrier did not arrive at the correct result, given the inputs used in the book?

to Peter,

So bottom line. What's your point? Are you saying that Carrier did not arrive at the correct result, given the inputs used in the book?

Even if we accept the inputs used in the book (which I don't), Carrier's math about calculating the overall result of the consequent odds is wrong and therefore affects the overall result.
Because so many inputs are not subjected to math before getting into these multiplications, talking about a correct result is not relevant, regardless if the math is right or wrong.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Peter,

So bottom line. What's your point? Are you saying that Carrier did not arrive at the correct result, given the inputs used in the book?

Even if we accept the inputs used in the book (which I don't), Carrier's math about calculating the overall result of the consequent odds is wrong and therefore affects the overall result.
Because so many inputs are not subjected to math before getting into these multiplications, talking about a correct result is not relevant, regardless if the math is right or wrong.

Cordially, Bernard

Does he arrive at the correct result, given the inputs, or does he not? It's a simple question.