Afraid ya fucking missed it, proudfootz. A message, delivered with a cuss.
proudfootz wrote:... help would-be historians ...
Like Dick Carrier. He's never held an academic position in his life. I've yet to see a scrap of original research post-PhD.
Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86
proudfootz wrote:... help would-be historians ...
Byron wrote:"What Carrier fails to do is match his chart to the land."
Afraid ya fucking missed it, proudfootz. A message, delivered with a cuss.
proudfootz wrote:... help would-be historians ...
Like Dick Carrier. He's never held an academic position in his life.
I've yet to see a scrap of original research post-PhD.
Byron wrote:You pony up some peer-reviewed historical research by Dick Carrier then, proudfootz.
Byron wrote:Erm, yeah, things is, proudfootz, I didn't ask you for his résumé, I asked you for an example of Carrier's post-doctorate peer-reviewed historical research. D'you have one?
proudfootz wrote:Bayes’ Theorem has been proven formally valid. Any argument that violates a valid
form of argument is itself invalid. Therefore any argument that violates Bayes’ Theorem
is invalid. All valid historical arguments are described by Bayes’ Theorem. Therefore any
historical argument that cannot be described by a correct application of Bayes’ Theorem
is invalid. Therefore Bayes’ Theorem is a good method of testing any historical argument
for validity.
... so nerny-ner-ner-ner-ner.
A more lucid refutation of an argument was never typed.
But really - have you got any rational reasons to not like what is written here?
Bayes’ Theorem has been proven formally valid. Any argument that violates a valid
form of argument is itself invalid. Therefore any argument that violates Bayes’ Theorem
is invalid.
All valid historical arguments are described by Bayes’ Theorem.
Therefore any historical argument that cannot be described by a correct application of Bayes’ Theorem
is invalid. Therefore Bayes’ Theorem is a good method of testing any historical argument
for validity.
This isn't a basic logical error. This is a basic comprehension error. Carrier doesn't say that all valid arguments use Bayes' theorem, he's saying that you can use Bayes' theorem to describe any valid arguments.Two points here. Firstly, Bayes' Theorem can be used in a valid argument. It absolutely does not follow that all valid arguments use Bayes' Theorem. That's equivalent to saying that because a mop can be used to effectively clean a floor, all floor cleaning that doesn't use a mop is ineffective. Basic logical error.
Mus Ponticus wrote:Carrier doesn't say that all valid arguments use Bayes' theorem, he's saying that you can use Bayes' theorem to describe any valid arguments.
proudfootz wrote:Again, you failed to quote the introductory paragraph... Here Carrier is simply showing how application of Bayes theorem will help would-be historians from making the common mistake of failing to take into account competing theories. Again Carrier is not claiming he is 'working' the Bayes Theorem in this example.
logical bob wrote:
The bigger point is that history doesn't handle probabilities in a mathematical way and has never claimed to do so.
logical bob wrote:proudfootz wrote:Again, you failed to quote the introductory paragraph... Here Carrier is simply showing how application of Bayes theorem will help would-be historians from making the common mistake of failing to take into account competing theories. Again Carrier is not claiming he is 'working' the Bayes Theorem in this example.
Do you think historians are unaware of the possibility of alternative hypotheses until they see Bayes' Theorem, when they go "God, how could I have been so stupid?" Considering competing theories is just common sense, not an application of Bayes' Theorem.
In the paragraph I didn't quote Carrier begins "Bayes’ Theorem will force you to examine the likelihood of the evidence on competing theories" and then says "for example..." It seems to me he is very much claiming to be working the Theorem. You're dead right to say that he actually isn't working it. How does he examine the likelihood of the competing theory? He announces that the use of Brother of the Lord as a title is "just as likely." Rigourous, huh?
What he's doing is trying to give a mathematically illiterate audience the impression that the standard arguments he uses elsewhere are the product of a mathematical approach.
It's pretty much like an advert for skin cream being fronted by someone with a white coat and glasses.
proudfootz wrote:Thus Carrier points out that the guesses about what is 'more likely' must be tempered by consideration of competing hypotheses and this process may expose why the original reading cannot be regarded as 'more likely' after all.
proudfootz wrote:Good to see someone making an effort to help make the assumptions of the 'judgement calls' of historians more explicit and more amenable to logical analysis.
Except in this case it's a historian discussing historical method.
proudfootz wrote:logical bob wrote:The bigger point is that history doesn't handle probabilities in a mathematical way and has never claimed to do so.
This may be true - but then we're left with the constant refrain of 'more likely' or 'more probable' as used in arguments about history merely being sounds without much meaning if we're to be left in the dark about how much more likely or probable.
paarsurrey wrote:I think all this effort of the atheists is just to prove Christianity wrong and bring them to reality; that could be done more easily, instead of the sophistication of the "Twelve Axioms of Historical Method", with breaking the backbone of Paul's invented theology, as mentioned in the "Litmus test of a Christian". Not all the atheists are as intelligent or educated as Richard Carrier is; there are many ignorant atheists as well.
logical bob wrote:proudfootz wrote:Thus Carrier points out that the guesses about what is 'more likely' must be tempered by consideration of competing hypotheses and this process may expose why the original reading cannot be regarded as 'more likely' after all.
Yes, I agree. That's common sense. I've said and you've said it. Is there anyone who would argue that consideration of competing hypotheses is not a good idea? We've said it succinctly in one sentence, without recourse to equations. It's also worth noting that Carrier has gone to some trouble to make the equations look more complex than they actually are. Google Bayes' Theorem and get yourself a comparison.
So why scatter all these deliberately obscurantist equations around in order to state the blindingly obvious? I don't think it takes mind reading to conclude that he's trying to confer on his anti-HJ conclusions the credibility of mathematical rigour. And at the top of the thread, you bought it.
proudfootz wrote:Good to see someone making an effort to help make the assumptions of the 'judgement calls' of historians more explicit and more amenable to logical analysis.Except in this case it's a historian discussing historical method.
A historian deploying deliberate sophistry.
Look, there are good arguments to be made about looking deeper than the obvious interpretation of Brother of the Lord and the standard application of the criterion of embarrassment. That case isn't helped by bullshit like this.
proudfootz wrote:logical bob wrote:The bigger point is that history doesn't handle probabilities in a mathematical way and has never claimed to do so.
This may be true - but then we're left with the constant refrain of 'more likely' or 'more probable' as used in arguments about history merely being sounds without much meaning if we're to be left in the dark about how much more likely or probable.
History is subjective. There's no getting away from that. It might be nice if we could settle the HJ question with a calculator, but we can't. Deal with it.
proudfootz wrote:This is more than that one point, as you may notice the paper makes many other points as well - this is about a comprehensive method of testing hypotheses. ... If you bother to read the paper there are many points than the one you cherry picked.
proudfootz wrote:logical bob wrote:proudfootz wrote:Thus Carrier points out that the guesses about what is 'more likely' must be tempered by consideration of competing hypotheses and this process may expose why the original reading cannot be regarded as 'more likely' after all.
Yes, I agree. That's common sense. I've said and you've said it. Is there anyone who would argue that consideration of competing hypotheses is not a good idea? We've said it succinctly in one sentence, without recourse to equations. It's also worth noting that Carrier has gone to some trouble to make the equations look more complex than they actually are. Google Bayes' Theorem and get yourself a comparison.
This is more than that one point, as you may notice the paper makes many other points as well - this is about a comprehensive method of testing hypotheses.So why scatter all these deliberately obscurantist equations around in order to state the blindingly obvious? I don't think it takes mind reading to conclude that he's trying to confer on his anti-HJ conclusions the credibility of mathematical rigour. And at the top of the thread, you bought it.
Nope, now you're trying to read my mind as well as Carrier's. Instead of attacking the alleged 'motives' of others why not stick to something a little more substantive than your subjective guesses as to what Carrier is 'trying' to do?
If you bother to read the paper there are many points than the one you cherry picked.proudfootz wrote:Good to see someone making an effort to help make the assumptions of the 'judgement calls' of historians more explicit and more amenable to logical analysis.Except in this case it's a historian discussing historical method.
A historian deploying deliberate sophistry.
Again - a historian discussing applying a valid logical process to historical methodology might look like sophistry to you, but so far you've only shown an ability to misunderstand what's in the paper and an ability to misrepresent it.Look, there are good arguments to be made about looking deeper than the obvious interpretation of Brother of the Lord and the standard application of the criterion of embarrassment. That case isn't helped by bullshit like this.
Thus far it seems the bullshit you're slinging is not helpful, either.proudfootz wrote:logical bob wrote:The bigger point is that history doesn't handle probabilities in a mathematical way and has never claimed to do so.
This may be true - but then we're left with the constant refrain of 'more likely' or 'more probable' as used in arguments about history merely being sounds without much meaning if we're to be left in the dark about how much more likely or probable.
History is subjective. There's no getting away from that. It might be nice if we could settle the HJ question with a calculator, but we can't. Deal with it.
Nice use of the strawman!
I guess if you're happy to live with historians cloaking their bullshit in 'truthy' sounding phrases like 'probable' and 'likely' I will have to live with that.
Just as you'll have to live with the fact that others would like history to be a little less vague than all that.
proudfootz wrote:Still no valid argument against Carrier's description about how his map fits the territory?
proudfootz wrote:paarsurrey wrote:I think all this effort of the atheists is just to prove Christianity wrong and bring them to reality; that could be done more easily, instead of the sophistication of the "Twelve Axioms of Historical Method", with breaking the backbone of Paul's invented theology, as mentioned in the "Litmus test of a Christian". Not all the atheists are as intelligent or educated as Richard Carrier is; there are many ignorant atheists as well.
I don't agree that the improvements suggested in the methods of historical study are 'just to prove christianity wrong' - though that may well be a side effect.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest