Posted:

**Feb 01, 2012 11:24 pm**TheOneTrueZeke wrote:None of this, by the way, objects to the validity of Bayes Theorem. It objects to it's usefulness in the case of historical arguments. If we can't define the probability of any of our underlying assumptions with a reliable and applicable data set then there's simply no way we can usefully apply Bayes Theorem to the question being examined.

If we actually did have access to all the relevant data for all of our underlying assumptions then, sure, we could apply Bayes Theorem. As it is it would be an exercise in futility to attempt to do so.

Yup. As I said a few pages back, values have to be assigned to questions without a dataset ... and Carrier offers no formula to make that assignment.

The sad thing is, he could write a whole book on this question without spotting this glaring error in his argument. This is precisely why academia employs the peer-review process. It's not, as Carrier seems to think, there to block his brilliant theories. It's there to save him from making an arse of himself.