Misconceptions about Me, Baye's, Rigor, Exodus, Evolution

[calcbandit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, P(Ressurection|Bible) = P(Bible|Ressurection) * P(Anybody ressurecting) / P(that the New Testament would have been written anyway, with or without the ressurection).

-assumptions: if Jesus actually did ressurect, there is no chance that it wouldn't have been recorded in the Bible. P(Bible|Ressurection) = 1.

-P(anybody ressurecting) = 0.0000000000000000000000001.

-P(NT gets recorded anyway, even without ressurection) = .01. I'm beibg generous and saying that the NT writers wouldn't have written it unless they were fairly certan that the ressurection happened. 99% of the time they write about an event, the event happened. P(NT ) = .01.

Plugging in, we still get a mathematically 0 value for the ressurection since people don't come back from the dead. Even if the NT writers rarely make errors.

There is no such huge penalty on Exodus, since it's entirely feasible for one group to enslave another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think assigning numbers to any of these probabilities is completely arbitrary and only reflects our personally perceptions (i.e. subjectivity) and is not based on any probabilistic framework.

However, I'll join in your fun:
P(B|R) = 1, ok fine, my subjectivity matches yours.
P(R) ~= 0, ok fine, mine matches yours.
P(NT | no R) ... for me this is also ~= 0. I don't see how you're being "generous" by assigning 0.01. To me, if Jesus didn't resurrect, then he was nothing more than a great speaker/leader of the time, and is not the son of god, etc., etc. However, I completely subscribe to this probability being totally subjective based on my personal beliefs and not grounded on any model.

So my hand waving math yields 0 / 0 for a nice little undefined quantity, as it should be when applied with rigor anyway. But, since I like rigor, I guess I'm a loser who doesn't understand mathematics anyway (of course you didn't say this though).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, that is the issue. You are assigning a probability of 1 that the Bible is a 100% accurate description of what literally happened in Jesus' day. You aren't just saying it is unlikely that anybody made an error, or exagerated, or the story got passed down wrong, you're saying it's impossible. I think you know what impossible means.

That's fine. In my experience, though, errors happen. They happen all of the time. There is evidence that errors have been made. I know for a fact that it is not impossible for an error to be made. None of these things are true about a guy rising from the dead.

So, do you really think it's more likely that a guy rose from the dead, even knowing that such an event is held to be physically impossible in all other cases, than it is that somebody lied, invented, misquoted, exaggerated, made a mistake, etc when writing that the ressurection happened? Even though the people that wrote that this happened (who you are assigning a probability of being correct to 1) never actually saw the event. Sounds like a poor choice.

[djames]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, P(Ressurection|Bible) = P(Bible|Ressurection) * P(Anybody ressurecting) / P(that the New Testament would have been written anyway, with or without the ressurection).

-assumptions: if Jesus actually did ressurect, there is no chance that it wouldn't have been recorded in the Bible. P(Bible|Ressurection) = 1.

-P(anybody ressurecting) = 0.0000000000000000000000001.

-P(NT gets recorded anyway, even without ressurection) = .01. I'm beibg generous and saying that the NT writers wouldn't have written it unless they were fairly certan that the ressurection happened. 99% of the time they write about an event, the event happened. P(NT ) = .01.

Plugging in, we still get a mathematically 0 value for the ressurection since people don't come back from the dead. Even if the NT writers rarely make errors.

There is no such huge penalty on Exodus, since it's entirely feasible for one group to enslave another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think assigning numbers to any of these probabilities is completely arbitrary and only reflects our personally perceptions (i.e. subjectivity) and is not based on any probabilistic framework.

However, I'll join in your fun:
P(B|R) = 1, ok fine, my subjectivity matches yours.
P(R) ~= 0, ok fine, mine matches yours.
P(NT | no R) ... for me this is also ~= 0. I don't see how you're being "generous" by assigning 0.01. To me, if Jesus didn't resurrect, then he was nothing more than a great speaker/leader of the time, and is not the son of god, etc., etc. However, I completely subscribe to this probability being totally subjective based on my personal beliefs and not grounded on any model.

So my hand waving math yields 0 / 0 for a nice little undefined quantity, as it should be when applied with rigor anyway. But, since I like rigor, I guess I'm a loser who doesn't understand mathematics anyway (of course you didn't say this though).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yup, that is the issue. You are assigning a probability of 1 that the Bible is a 100% accurate description of what literally happened in Jesus' day. You aren't just saying it is unlikely that anybody made an error, or exagerated, or the story got passed down wrong, you're saying it's impossible. I think you know what impossible means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, I'm not saying this at all. You're not computing 0 / 0 to be 1 are you? I'm saying, after I switched to the subjective world where we're able to spout out numbers for these probabilities, that this ROP method of Mr. DS is bogus when comparing the likelihood of miracles.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't make much sense to me. In your numerator, you have a quantity you listed as 1. I didn't argue, because I didn't need to argue for something lower. Notice it's multiplied in the numerator by an infinitessimal, the product of which is also an infinitessimal. If you feel there is information loss, fine, pick whatever number you want and result in the same undefined 0 / 0 fraction I do.

Clearly I'm missing your point. I'll wait for DS to chime in, however I'm guessing I'll be disappointed. Probably some caveat about excluding the miracle portion of the exodus or some other reason why he's been misunderstood.

Someone do a Bayesian analysis on the quality of DS's posts given the frequency by which he's "misunderstood." That might be quite interesting.

[borisp]

Ok, I got over my disgust at the first sentence. On to serious question(s) for David:

What do you assess is the probability of there existing some event that occurs exactly once throughout the duration of the universe? Or is it even possible to assess this quantity?

Is it sensible to talk in the language of physics about these events, if they exist?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I got over my disgust at the first sentence. On to serious question(s) for David:

What do you assess is the probability of there existing some event that occurs exactly once throughout the duration of the universe? Or is it even possible to assess this quantity?

Is it sensible to talk in the language of physics about these events, if they exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not worthy to have an opinion. Nonetheless, I think these are excellent questions. I hope DS has an answer...

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Wait, are you saying that patience/dedication + high-but-not-genius-IQ can achieve non-trivial results in math/science?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would.

There are far more merely smart scientists than brilliant ones, and both groups do important work. Brilliance only sometimes substitutes for long hours and familiarity with specific areas, even in mathematics.

If you take a first rate mathematics journal like Annals of Mathematics or Inventiones Mathematicae, you might primarily see career-making work of brilliant mathematicians. However, in the second tier of journals, you also find career-making work of smart mathematicians, as well as ordinary work by brilliant mathematicians. In less prestigious journals, you will find many good, useful/interesting articles written by ordinary mathematicians. (There is also stuff which is not worth reading.)

My impression is that there is much less reliance on raw brilliance in experimental sciences. It's not that the scientists aren't brilliant as frequently, but it is easier to design an experiment half-clued students can execute than in mathematics, and that type of footwork is more important.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, are you saying that patience/dedication + high-but-not-genius-IQ can achieve non-trivial results in math/science?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would.

There are far more merely smart scientists than brilliant ones, and both groups do important work. Brilliance only sometimes substitutes for long hours and familiarity with specific areas, even in mathematics.

If you take a first rate mathematics journal like Annals of Mathematics or Inventiones Mathematicae, you might primarily see career-making work of brilliant mathematicians. However, in the second tier of journals, you also find career-making work of smart mathematicians, as well as ordinary work by brilliant mathematicians. In less prestigious journals, you will find many good, useful/interesting articles written by ordinary mathematicians. (There is also stuff which is not worth reading.)

My impression is that there is much less reliance on raw brilliance in experimental sciences. It's not that the scientists aren't brilliant as frequently, but it is easier to design an experiment half-clued students can execute than in mathematics, and that type of footwork is more important.

[/ QUOTE ]
Looking back at my original response to this question, I should have written specifically "high IQ," not "genius IQ," as I wasn't really distinguishing. Past a certain point of IQ there is no distinction in mathematical ability that a standardized test could pick up; i.e., almost all of us would get perfect on the math SAT. I agree with everything in this post.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I got over my disgust at the first sentence. On to serious question(s) for David:

What do you assess is the probability of there existing some event that occurs exactly once throughout the duration of the universe? Or is it even possible to assess this quantity?

Is it sensible to talk in the language of physics about these events, if they exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Goodness. That first sentence was meant for Pair The Board only. He accuses me of feigning rigor when nothiong could be further from the truth. Plus its fun to yank his chain with nasty arrogance. But I still believe I'm right about infinitesimals. Those who felt Newton's shortcut was unrigorous turned out to be wrong. Abraham Robinson I believe. But aside from that even if they were right, their quest to fix it wasn't because they thought their efforts would help quantum theory. It was because of an anal fixation on unnecessary rigor. Unneccessary in the sense that they knew that all calculus problems could be solved in the "unrigorous" way.

I'm wrong though in calling them mediocre. That again was to yank PTBs and a few other's chain. Not boris or phizon. Undoubtedly they were smart. But nuts.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Goodness. That first sentence was meant for Pair The Board only. He accuses me of feigning rigor when nothiong could be further from the truth. Plus its fun to yank his chain with nasty arrogance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Goodness ...

[ QUOTE ]
But I still believe I'm right about ...

[/ QUOTE ]
you do realise you posted this under DS not NR.

chez

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
you do realise you posted this under DS not NR.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, the <font color="red">DS</font>/NR author has a DAZZINGLY nuanced grasp of religious psychology...and I bow deeply to him. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I got over my disgust at the first sentence. On to serious question(s) for David:

What do you assess is the probability of there existing some event that occurs exactly once throughout the duration of the universe? Or is it even possible to assess this quantity?

Is it sensible to talk in the language of physics about these events, if they exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Goodness. That first sentence was meant for Pair The Board only. He accuses me of feigning rigor when nothiong could be further from the truth. Plus its fun to yank his chain with nasty arrogance. But I still believe I'm right about infinitesimals. Those who felt Newton's shortcut was unrigorous turned out to be wrong. Abraham Robinson I believe. But aside from that even if they were right, their quest to fix it wasn't because they thought their efforts would help quantum theory. It was because of an anal fixation on unnecessary rigor. Unneccessary in the sense that they knew that all calculus problems could be solved in the "unrigorous" way.

I'm wrong though in calling them mediocre. That again was to yank PTBs and a few other's chain. Not boris or phizon. Undoubtedly they were smart. But nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on borisp's questions though? Why you do things is not particularly interesting.