I'm curious, if Carriers methods are valid, and Bayesian probability is a good method for studying history. Then by Carriers own attestation, there are many bad mythicists scholars out there making many horrible arguments. Given this, then Carrier has to overcome a high probability that he is just a crank "scholar" with poor reasoning capabilities. Therefore the correct coarse of action would be to; a priori label as a crank, and to look for any small justification to hold to that position. We would raise the bar, ignoring anything that conflicts with our Bayesian findings, and hold him to an implausible level which he must then overcome.
Or we could go the traditional route, address the evidence and reasoning on their merits, and judge his assertions based on the poor logic, and cherry picked evidence that make them up. Addressing the arguments directly, rather than an end run around to discredit anyone who disagree's, and quibbling over minutia, that isn't involved in the topic at hand to begin with.
Or we could go the traditional route, address the evidence and reasoning on their merits, and judge his assertions based on the poor logic, and cherry picked evidence that make them up. Addressing the arguments directly, rather than an end run around to discredit anyone who disagree's, and quibbling over minutia, that isn't involved in the topic at hand to begin with.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
