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!
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.
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’.
BTW, Carrier has posted about the book on his blog. His reasons for doing the project about the Historical Jesus:
So if you want a worked example on any other topic, there’s the going price!
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.
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’.
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.
Actually, $20k is apparently exactly what Rachel Briggs is being paid for a TDT paper… http://lesswrong.com/lw/cok/purchasing_good_research/