tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post2140171599659518287..comments2023-05-10T08:55:47.701-07:00Comments on Richard Carrier Blogs: CSA InterviewRichard Carrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-78094743510167569372011-02-08T08:14:58.769-08:002011-02-08T08:14:58.769-08:00CORRECTION
Landon Hedrick: I just realized I misr...<b>CORRECTION</b><br /><br /><b>Landon Hedrick:</b> I just realized I misremembered. The CAESAR article <i>wasn't</i> corrected, the SJT version was supposed to have been (I sent the editors an email with some of the corrections even before receiving a galley proof, and would have caught the others if I had ever received a galley). So both are defective. Not fatally (just terminological Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-1176092400385839202011-01-28T15:00:30.975-08:002011-01-28T15:00:30.975-08:00Landon Hedrick said... What is the article in CAES...<b>Landon Hedrick said...</b> <i>What is the article in CAESAR?</i><br /><br />“Bayes’ Theorem for Beginners: Formal Logic and Its Relevance to Historical Method.” <i>Caesar: A Journal for the Critical Study of Religion and Human Values</i> 3.1 (2009): 26-35.<br /><br /><i>For that matter, what is "CAESAR"?</i><br /><br />The ineptly-named and now-defunct <a href="http://Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-31773002192308132562011-01-27T11:10:22.909-08:002011-01-27T11:10:22.909-08:00Richard,
What is the article in CAESAR? For that...Richard,<br /><br />What is the article in CAESAR? For that matter, what is "CAESAR"? Also, I've heard from other sources that you'll be having a paper out in an academic journal on the Josephus passages. Could you blog (or email) an update on all of this sometime? I'd also be interested in finding out how volume 2 is coming along.Landon Hedrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478038936820787129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-828214556621584982011-01-22T12:32:19.732-08:002011-01-22T12:32:19.732-08:00I don't understand your point. What do you thi...I don't understand your point. What do you think Fraser is saying?Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-79182076539195703002011-01-22T11:46:03.292-08:002011-01-22T11:46:03.292-08:00Hi Richard - see the following links. John Fraser...Hi Richard - see the following links. John Fraser is a personal friend of the McGrews (according to him).<br /><a href="http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/xn/detail/2060181:Comment:653433" rel="nofollow">Link 1</a> quote "As I've already pointed out, Richard Carrier tried to criticize it and ended up embarrassing himself. So I don't think other critics are going to be very hasty to Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-54376435891705368862011-01-22T10:07:48.273-08:002011-01-22T10:07:48.273-08:00I'm not aware of Lydia McGrew taking it that w...I'm not aware of Lydia McGrew taking it that way. Can you point me to an actual comment URL where she does? My apology fully explains where I was wrong and what I meant to say but didn't. Of course Lydia and I agree that I still think she's wrong, but for reasons other than the ones I retracted and apologized for (and those actual reasons I did state in my apology). If that is how Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-84808086335534507242011-01-15T10:07:03.028-08:002011-01-15T10:07:03.028-08:00Hi Richard, it's being put across by many on t...Hi Richard, it's being put across by many on the McGrew blog that your apology is more than it is. Indeed John Fraser (a student of the McGrews) is putting it across as a kicking.<br />I don't read it like that and I'm not suggesting that The McGrews are condoning such an interpretation but would it be worth expanding on what you meant to say rather than what you did say in the CSA Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-86853895596372735782011-01-15T09:56:51.703-08:002011-01-15T09:56:51.703-08:00We never discussed the AfS and it is not one of th...<i>We never discussed the AfS and it is not one of the "criteria of historicity" we discussed in the interview.</i><br /><br />Yes, I'm conflating more than one interview on the topic. <br /><br /><i>"But then, this thread discussion here can only assist in that goal, so thank you."</i><br /><br />Works for me. <br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-85588653944674366442011-01-14T17:04:31.761-08:002011-01-14T17:04:31.761-08:00On Lydia McGrew
KnocksvilleE said... I am also cu...<b>On Lydia McGrew</b><br /><br /><b>KnocksvilleE said...</b> <i>I am also curious how long you have had experience with Bayes' Theorem.</i><br /><br />I began mastering it in 2005.<br /><br />BTW, I have issued a correction regarding my statements that Lydia McGrew questioned, and I apologized to Lydia (see <a href="http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2011/01/odds-form-of-bayess-theorem.html?Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-66157562188609934162011-01-14T17:01:59.818-08:002011-01-14T17:01:59.818-08:00Steven Carr said... So the chance of finding at l...<b>Steven Carr said... </b> <i>So the chance of finding at least 3 Marks is 0.475 (to 3sf)</i><br /><br />I had already corrected this before you posted. Ironically, we must have caught the error at exactly the same time (go revisit the PDF link and reread the corresponding page).Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-33220166423014845172011-01-14T17:01:38.149-08:002011-01-14T17:01:38.149-08:00hatsoff said... you talk a lot about Bayes' th...<b>hatsoff said...</b> <i>you talk a lot about Bayes' theorem, but how can we use it to settle historical questions?</i><br /><br />My entire book <i>Bayes' Theorem and Historical Method</i> answers that question, in 320 pages. It is finished, has been read by numerous experts, and is now being shopped for a publisher. You will just have to wait for that to come out and read it.<br /><br Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-43147804238226106422011-01-14T17:00:34.581-08:002011-01-14T17:00:34.581-08:00Double Standard, or False Dichotomy?
Morrison sai...<b>Double Standard, or False Dichotomy?</b><br /><br /><b>Morrison said...</b> <i>I know you would not operate under a double standard, so I would like a little more clarification.</i><br /><br />I have no double standard. But you might perhaps be laboring under a false dichotomy: all writings are either of Ph.D. quality or of no account. <br /><br />There are instead degrees of qualification, Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-91514326618123141272011-01-14T16:56:13.798-08:002011-01-14T16:56:13.798-08:00Intellectual Quality Control
Morrison said... I h...<b>Intellectual Quality Control</b><br /><br /><b>Morrison said...</b> <i>I have also had a few courses in History and Philosphy, so does that mean I can claim the same expertise in those fields that you claim in Math?</i><br /><br />Do you have any peer reviewed papers published in those fields?<br /><br /><i>Which leads me to wonder why you are always flouting a Ph.D., since you did a lot of Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-34398623254398754532011-01-14T16:53:52.987-08:002011-01-14T16:53:52.987-08:00Being Misunderstood
WAR_ON_ERROR said... When you...<b>Being Misunderstood</b><br /><br /><b>WAR_ON_ERROR said...</b> <i>When you say "all historical criteria are completely hosed" for example...</i><br /><br />Correction: only the thirty or so named criteria in Jesus studies that we were discussing; I was not referring to all criteria in the whole of all fields of history.<br /><br /><i>...but then you go on to say that criteria x <i>isRichard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-31436026115345765632011-01-14T16:52:23.098-08:002011-01-14T16:52:23.098-08:00Fixing Current Methodologies
WAR_ON_ERROR said......<b>Fixing Current Methodologies</b><br /><br /><b>WAR_ON_ERROR said...</b> <i>I don't think I'm disagreeing with you in substance, only in presentation. You seem to agree that historians are using informal logic and even formal logic that may reach Bayesian articulation naturally.</i><br /><br />Right: when historians make valid arguments, their arguments conform to Bayes' Theorem, Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-10588497125425184262011-01-08T10:26:20.356-08:002011-01-08T10:26:20.356-08:00Dr Carrier,
Do you plan on commenting on the Commo...Dr Carrier,<br />Do you plan on commenting on the CommonSenseAtheism Article discussing this latest podcast?<br /><br />I am also wondering if you plan on responding to Lydia McGrew's rebuttal to the claims you made about her writing:<br />http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2011/01/odds-form-of-bayess-theorem.html<br /><br />I also noticed Luke M made this comment on that page:<br />"KnocksvilleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08423194549982565593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-54948345591582860182011-01-08T00:55:02.834-08:002011-01-08T00:55:02.834-08:00From your 2008 essay on Bayes...
'For exampl...From your 2008 essay on Bayes...<br /><br /><br />'For example, if 1 in 4 people were named Mark, and you picked three people at random, the odds that they would all be named Mark would be 0.253 = 0.016 =<br />1.6%, in other words very unlikely,<br /><br /> but if you picked ten people at random, the odds that any three of them would be named Mark would be 1 – 0.757 = 1 – 0.133 = 0.867 = 87%,Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-59769646975485803362011-01-07T15:40:51.584-08:002011-01-07T15:40:51.584-08:00Dr. Carrier,
I know you must be very busy, but I ...Dr. Carrier,<br /><br />I know you must be very busy, but I hope you have the time to read and maybe even respond to this.<br /><br />I sympathize with your criticisms of historical research, but I'm a bit puzzled by what you're proposing to put in its place. For instance, you talk a lot about Bayes' theorem, but how can we use it to settle historical questions? Just to give you an Ben Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-16486692253836442642011-01-07T13:42:40.628-08:002011-01-07T13:42:40.628-08:00The McGrews are writing articles about poor unders...The McGrews are writing articles about poor understanding of stats.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-42793795508240985522011-01-06T09:04:13.064-08:002011-01-06T09:04:13.064-08:00By the way, Dr. Carrier, I don't always want t...By the way, Dr. Carrier, I don't always want to seem to just be disagreeing so I would like to add that I agree that both PAINE and JEFFERSON are not reliable as historians.Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137890891223067672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-58868929380098208192011-01-06T08:30:58.627-08:002011-01-06T08:30:58.627-08:00Dr. Carrier, I appreciate your response, and I see...Dr. Carrier, I appreciate your response, and I see that you have had a few course in Math and Science and taken Calulus.<br /><br />A lot of sophomores on our campus take Calculus and similar science courses, as I have.<br /><br />I have also had a few courses in History and Philosphy, so does that mean I can claim the same expertise in those fields that you claim in Math?<br /><br />Just wanted Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137890891223067672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-10273115473935112272011-01-06T00:05:07.392-08:002011-01-06T00:05:07.392-08:00@Rick:
I don't think I'm disagreeing with...@Rick:<br /><br />I don't think I'm disagreeing with you in substance, only in presentation. You seem to agree that historians are using informal logic and even formal logic that may reach Bayesian articulation naturally. And we recognize those better conclusions when we see them as a result. You want greater self-awareness and greater levels of precision in addition to skipping to theBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-32980508023953435532011-01-05T10:05:03.078-08:002011-01-05T10:05:03.078-08:00The second problem (lack of logical analysis of th...The second problem (lack of logical analysis of the "obvious") is not a major problem since by definition such inferences are so clear one does not need to know why (e.g. we don't have to know the formal logical basis for trusting our knowledge of where our house is in order to know that our inferences in that regard are obviously correct almost all the time; analogously, we can be Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-49829877899268280432011-01-05T10:02:00.104-08:002011-01-05T10:02:00.104-08:00WAR_ON_ERROR said... ...It's not like there is...<b>WAR_ON_ERROR said...</b> <i>...It's not like there is logic and then Bayes's theorem.</i><br /><br />The rest of what you say is correct. But the actual issue pertaining to this remark specifically is not "logic vs. BT" but "the absence of any formal logic vs. the presence of formal logic," and when this is resolved in favor of the right-hand competitor, what "Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36959219.post-33558943637451123292011-01-05T09:27:43.426-08:002011-01-05T09:27:43.426-08:00Morrison said... And since many of the contributor...<b>Morrison said... </b><i>And since many of the contributors to the book you contibuted to with John Loftus do not have a Ph.D. (including Loftus himself) or do not have one in a relevant field, can I dismiss them as well?</i><br /><br />I've only been speaking here of historians (note <a href="http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/01/csa-interview.html?showComment=1294183676099#Richard Carrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17577206926510030146noreply@blogger.com