So, I found Dick saying this about my thesis, without reading the book of course:
I always find it amusing when someone attempts what is a nakedly probability-dependent argument (like that Mark was influenced by and/or emulating Lucan) and then insists no one can apply maths to history. They are only refuting themselves.
Umm… Not sure I did a “probability dependent argument” (Carried still thinks he’s into math and deep theory… mainly just deep… well, you know).
What I did was to lay out a model of education in ancient Rome. Then, I showed what Lucan did, briefly. Then… I suggest we examine Mark in the same manner, giving something of a rhythm to Mark if Lucan is used. Finally, I also gave a reading of Mark by Lucan.
This is not flipping a coin, or trying to gauge decisions in the future, gents, but examining a book in close proximity, with nearly the same cognitive environment, including crisis, with the hopes of establishing a similar viewpoint and perimeter in hopes of identifying a better interpretative stance. Instead of forward (dependability), this is more like establishing an evolving style of imitatio.
Two events are dependent if the outcome or occurrence of the first affects the outcome or occurrence of the second so that the probability is changed.
As McGrath says,
If mythicists are going to not take seriously the one individual with a PhD in history who supports mythicism, is it any surprise that mythicism is not taken seriously by others?
Oh, and yes… read the suggested articles…
- Probability and Interpretations (scientopia.org)
- Friends don’t let friends calculate p-values (without fully understanding them) (scottbot.net)
- Richard Carrier asks: “What Do Ron Lindsay and an Oklahoma Tornado Have in Common?” (jmpea81.wordpress.com)
- Coming Soon: Theoretical Probability (hamzaltd.wordpress.com)
- Subjective Versus Objective Bayes (Versus Frequentism): Part Final: Parameters! (wmbriggs.com)