David_Gerard comments on Mini-review: 'Proving History: Bayes' Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus' - Less Wrong

18 Post author: lukeprog 01 February 2012 07:20PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: David_Gerard 11 February 2012 04:49:53PM 3 points [-]

BTW, Carrier has posted about the book on his blog. His reasons for doing the project about the Historical Jesus:

... my wife and I were buried under student loan debt and I offered myself up to complete any hard core project my fans wanted in exchange for as many donations as I could get to fund my work. They all unanimously said “historicity of Jesus” and came up with twenty thousand dollars. Which cleared our debt and really saved us financially.

So if you want a worked example on any other topic, there's the going price!

Comment author: David_Gerard 11 February 2012 09:08:13PM *  1 point [-]

By the way, I think Luke's conclusion may be wrong, and this could be the book to take Bayes mainstream. I thought this after reading this interview with Carrier. In it, Carrier says that part of what his book tries to do is to introduce the reader to Bayesian thinking and - and this is the good bit - teach them how to ascertain the argumentative quality of people who disagree in claimed Bayesian analyses.

Luke, does the book contain said parts, and are they actually good and readable? Assume you'd only ever vaguely heard about this Bayes stuff.

Using a topic as hideously contentious as the historicity of Jesus strikes me as a brilliant move - the scholars will know Carrier knows his stuff, the skepticsphere will trumpet the book far and wide, the churches will absolutely shit ... someone might even read the book in between denouncing it. In any case, the word "Bayes", still all but unknown in the wider world, will achieve circulation as another signifier of the Enlightenment.

Comment author: gwern 01 November 2012 12:16:48AM 2 points [-]

Using a topic as hideously contentious as the historicity of Jesus strikes me as a brilliant move - the scholars will know Carrier knows his stuff, the skepticsphere will trumpet the book far and wide, the churches will absolutely shit ... someone might even read the book in between denouncing it.

I'm not sure that will happen. Look through Carrier's blog for reviews of Proving History: by and large they look like statistical carping of the sort which will make people think 'ah, it's just scientism: arrogant application of tools of limited domain outside their correct area, and the math isn't even right, apparently'.

It's early days yet, of course, but in Google Scholar I see nothing citing '"Proving History" Carrier'.

Comment author: David_Gerard 01 November 2012 08:37:33AM -1 points [-]

Yeah, I was pretty much wrong. And the number of equations will be like garlic to a vampire for the typical humanities scholar.

Still a fantastic book, though.