Posted: Feb 02, 2012 12:19 am
by TheOneTrueZeke
proudfootz wrote:

Apparently all the peer review in the world hasn't stopped virtually every historian from making the 'glaring error' of arbitrarily saying "X is probable" without being able to define what the hell it's supposed to mean.

It's not defined in quantitative terms. It has been defined in qualitative ones. You can comb back through the HJ thread to see that.

If you have a problem with qualitative assessments of "probable" then you have a problem with history in general.

At least if someone says "X is 75% probable" the reader would have a better idea of how likely the writer intends to be than "X is very probable".

Which would be useful if you're a bookie otherwise...not so much.