So if the underlying message of this argument is “it’s ok to shoot the shit,” I agree. If it’s “sometimes stories and ideas can be conveyed by texts other than the original,” that’s trivially true. If it’s “you can make assumptions about the contents of a given book, then opine on the book itself,” that seems very wrong to me.
Prior + Evidence = Posteriors*
“you can make assumptions about the contents of a given book, then opine on [your model of] the book”
Prior + Evidence = Posteriors*
“you can make assumptions about the contents of a given book, then opine on [your model of] the book”
Is there a specific book you haven’t read? Why?
*(Technically it’s P(X | Evidence) = P(Evidence | X)*P(X)/P(Evidence).)