Re: [Synoptic-L] Inductive argument and Baysian statistics
- At 06:43 AM 3/3/2006, Gentile, David wrote:
>It has come to my attention that the form of my recent argument may beThere is no barrier to probability theory here, except in the formulation
>completely foreign to those trained in biblical studies. (As some terms
>used by biblical scholars still are to me)
>I know biblical students learn inductive argument, but I am now guessing
>that Bayesian analysis, or a connection between inductive logic and
>probability is not (generally) part of the curriculum.
of a sound basis for it.
There is also no need to be patronizing.
>Bayesian probability is about subjective mental probability assessmentsThis characterization seems to consist primarily of words loosely thrown
>(or better yet the justified certainty a robot or computer correctly
>programmed could have about a given truth claim).
around. I have some familiarity with Bayes' theorem, and some others on the
list do, as well. Your description of Bayesian probability does not seem
satisfactory to me.
>Without that background, my recent argument may have been completelyAnd with that background, your recent argument is likely to be met with the
skepticism that you have encountered.
>My recent salt argument runs like this -"Show" and "strengthen" are key words in this statement, and it doesn't
>Produce an inductive argument for a pattern in Mark. Show that my
>reading of salt would strengthen that inductive argument.
seem to me that you have done either.
>Form a new completely separate inductive argument for a differentSee above.
>pattern in Mark, again show that my reading of salt would strengthen
>that inductive argument.
>Repeat as often as possible.Compounding a mistake does not undo the mistake.
>Each time my reading fits and strengthens one of those inductiveSee above.
>arguments, (better than a competing reading), our justified assessment
>of the probable truth of the reading must increase.
>This is a Bayesian probability argument.A little; but you've mainly failed to "show" and "strengthen," and that's
>Does this information help anyone understand what I was trying to say?
why you're not making any headway.
Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
University of Hawaii
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]