Scan barcode
Reviews
Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard C. Carrier
cunningba's review
4.0
A sensible approach
to evaluating the probability of assertions about history. Carrier’s approach using Bayes’s Theorem to cut through specious arguments is a valid scientific method, an important analytical tool, and can be helpful pedagogical technique.
While I would rate the main thesis and content of the book as 5 stars, overall readability is perhaps more like 3 stars. Hence my rating of 4 stars.
The first difficulty Carrier faces is that of trying to explain mathematical concepts of probability and statistics that are thoroughly garbled most people’s minds to a nontechnical audience. I have 3 degrees in mathematics, so I mind this and don't view this as adversely affecting readability directly, but it does mean that he does face a difficult problem as an author.
There were three main problems with readability that I noted.
(1) Typos and other small errors: these were mostly minor and just a little annoying. For example, missing parentheses in formulae, numerical errors in cross-references in explanations, and the introduction of mathematical techniques in notes (specifically Laplace's Rule of Succession) that are not explained in the book itself.
(2) Philosophical prolixity: an unfortunate tendancy to lapse into philosophical jargon when it is not really needed. As a reader with considerable mathematical training, I find this simply to be annoying noise. I can only conjecture that the effect on a nontechnical reader is not likely to be good. I think it marks a lapse in the author's awareness of the needs of his target audience.
(3) Diffuse reasoning in analysis: this is a problem in presentation style. In Carrier's analysis of historicity criteria the presentation of the analytical reasoning tends to be too diffuse. In presenting his analysis he also presents and refutes all common counterarguments as he goes along. This sometimes makes it comically difficult to follow the overarching thread of analytical reasoning over the course of 80 pages say, when a dozen or more examples of counterarguments are brought up and refuted in the course of the explanation. It would be much easier to follow the reasoning if it were first succinctly outlined an argued in 10 to 20 pages. Then examine the examples after the argument is completed and in the reader's mind to exhibit their fallacies.
to evaluating the probability of assertions about history. Carrier’s approach using Bayes’s Theorem to cut through specious arguments is a valid scientific method, an important analytical tool, and can be helpful pedagogical technique.
While I would rate the main thesis and content of the book as 5 stars, overall readability is perhaps more like 3 stars. Hence my rating of 4 stars.
The first difficulty Carrier faces is that of trying to explain mathematical concepts of probability and statistics that are thoroughly garbled most people’s minds to a nontechnical audience. I have 3 degrees in mathematics, so I mind this and don't view this as adversely affecting readability directly, but it does mean that he does face a difficult problem as an author.
There were three main problems with readability that I noted.
(1) Typos and other small errors: these were mostly minor and just a little annoying. For example, missing parentheses in formulae, numerical errors in cross-references in explanations, and the introduction of mathematical techniques in notes (specifically Laplace's Rule of Succession) that are not explained in the book itself.
(2) Philosophical prolixity: an unfortunate tendancy to lapse into philosophical jargon when it is not really needed. As a reader with considerable mathematical training, I find this simply to be annoying noise. I can only conjecture that the effect on a nontechnical reader is not likely to be good. I think it marks a lapse in the author's awareness of the needs of his target audience.
(3) Diffuse reasoning in analysis: this is a problem in presentation style. In Carrier's analysis of historicity criteria the presentation of the analytical reasoning tends to be too diffuse. In presenting his analysis he also presents and refutes all common counterarguments as he goes along. This sometimes makes it comically difficult to follow the overarching thread of analytical reasoning over the course of 80 pages say, when a dozen or more examples of counterarguments are brought up and refuted in the course of the explanation. It would be much easier to follow the reasoning if it were first succinctly outlined an argued in 10 to 20 pages. Then examine the examples after the argument is completed and in the reader's mind to exhibit their fallacies.
mark_lm's review against another edition
4.0
This dense and meticulously reasoned argument explains why the author recommends that Bayes’ Theorem be the basic technique for the analysis of hypotheses in history, both for our general education and in preparation for his second volume, On the Historicity of Jesus. I’m no expert, and I mostly used Bayes’ Theorem for demonstrations of medical diagnostic problems about 30 years ago, and then gradually more and more as a replacement of more common frequentist type statistics in everyday work as it became easier to do with computer software and better understood. From my point of view, so distant from Professor Carrier, this method acts as a way to check and compare your data, your assumptions, and your hypotheses, but, frankly, it’s hard for me to imagine thinking this way ab initio. Perhaps it comes with practice. Also, I must admit that regardless of the statistical analysis used, many of the problems that I had or was consulted about in my career mostly benefited in a similar way, i.e. the statistics confirmed why the researchers were correct in their assumptions and hypotheses, either graphically or numerically, but weren’t really necessary for them to know this initially. The great value of these techniques was always in those uncommon cases where the findings could be shown to be counter-intuitive. The classic Bayesian example that most doctors have seen, but probably never really understand, is looking for a rare disease with a sensitive test. The great majority of positive tests are false positives. I think that all of these factors are evident in Carrier’s discussion. I especially liked the flowchart in the appendix that shows the non-numerical use of Bayes’ theorem for the analysis of historical hypotheses.
dezukaful's review against another edition
4.0
Bayes theorem opens so many doors.
I think this is one of the first few books where I had to assign myself plenty of homework so that I would understand the concepts.
I think this is one of the first few books where I had to assign myself plenty of homework so that I would understand the concepts.
dcp374's review
2.0
Over my head.
I'm only given this a low review because I struggled b to follow it, not because it was poorly written, but because I found the subject to be way over my head. I don't have a strong math background and am not used to reading scholarly books, so I had a tough time absorbing the material.
But I'm very interested in the subject and I realize I should have chosen a more lay persons book as my first book on exploring the historicity of Jesus.
I'm only given this a low review because I struggled b to follow it, not because it was poorly written, but because I found the subject to be way over my head. I don't have a strong math background and am not used to reading scholarly books, so I had a tough time absorbing the material.
But I'm very interested in the subject and I realize I should have chosen a more lay persons book as my first book on exploring the historicity of Jesus.
More...