8 ms·

Clickbait title. A great deal of science is rooted in the works of individuals who held a variety of religious beliefs, and in many of those cases, their works

by zzalpha 10y ago

Clickbait title. A great deal of science is rooted in the works of individuals who held a variety of religious beliefs, and in many of those cases, their works were directly motivated by those beliefs. So the fact that Bayes came up with his theorem because of a desire to justify a belief in the resurrection of Christ is, I suppose, somewhat interesting, but not so much so that it needed to be the headline of the story.

weberc2 10y ago
It's not clickbait; this is the angle the article took to present the material. Whether or not it is novel or particularly good may be up for debate, but it's not clickbait.
- todd3834 10y ago
  I agree. As someone who probably wouldn't normally have read an entire article on bayesian probability, the angle the author took to present the material kept me interested for the entire thing. Maybe you can call it article bait? I found this a great history lesson followed up by very interesting links to how the human brain might work. The title seemed completely relevant to me.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jabv 10y ago
The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. I.e., either Bayes' theory has implications (not argument-ending proof) regarding the claims of the divinity of Jesus, or it is not relevant at all today.
- badkungfu 10y ago
  > I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. That always sounded like an unimaginative argument. Another possibility is that his followers exaggerated his words and deeds after his death.
  - eneifert 10y ago
    But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. Seems unreasonable that they would die for something they know is a lie. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. There is very little objective reason to believe that to be the case. There are (themselves mostly unsubstantiated) stories that a number of the inner circle of contemporaries, some of whom are also identified as witnesses of the resurrection, died for the faith, which is both considerably less than "all of his followers", and considerably less established as objective historical fact rather than part of the same system of mythology. It's certainly a fact that a little later, a lot of people who could not have been witnesses to the resurrection at the time it is held to have happened died for the faith (whether willing or not), but they obviously don't support the argument you are making. You can't rest a claim that one element of myth is objective fact on the argument that other elements of the same myth -- with no more objective support -- seem more likely if the first element is true.
      - posterboy 10y ago
        >You can't rest a claim Well that's the right idea, though. Taking it a few steps further, what would be more likely, that the vatican is a power hungry institution like any other, or that a pope is chosen by god himself, sometimes two of opposing believe at the same time even.
waynecochran 10y ago
Clickbait or not, many of the great scientists and mathematicians of the past thought that the existence of a benevolent God meant that the universe might be understandable and that there may be elegant laws underpinning how the universe works. To me its sort of a mystery why the universe is understandable at all -- e.g., the elegance and compactness of Maxwell's Equations for the complicated phenomenon of electromagnetism is one such example.
opaqe 10y ago
Agreed. You could pick a historical thinker at random and spin the same article making leaps into the future. Being self-identified as religious and influenced by God was the norm even well into Enlightenment. This sort of retrospective coronation is the positive version of "judging people without regard for their historical context." You could also pick any historical figure and say how their pro-slavery and anti-feminist thinking "helped unlocked the secrets of ____." But no one would praise or click that article on the face of it.

by zzalpha 10y ago

weberc2 10y ago

It's not clickbait; this is the angle the article took to present the material. Whether or not it is novel or particularly good may be up for debate, but it's not clickbait.

todd3834 10y ago
I agree. As someone who probably wouldn't normally have read an entire article on bayesian probability, the angle the author took to present the material kept me interested for the entire thing. Maybe you can call it article bait? I found this a great history lesson followed up by very interesting links to how the human brain might work. The title seemed completely relevant to me.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jabv 10y ago

The fact that Bayes' work, which is more popular and possibly relevant than ever, answers a serious philosophical challenges to claims about the nature of reality (a consequence of any claims of divinity) is a mere historical accident worthy of overlooking? I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. I.e., either Bayes' theory has implications (not argument-ending proof) regarding the claims of the divinity of Jesus, or it is not relevant at all today.

badkungfu 10y ago
> I am reminded of Fulton Sheen's comments on Jesus - a man that claimed to be God is either a liar, a lunatic, or God; to say such a man is a great teacher but not God stretches the limit of rationality. That always sounded like an unimaginative argument. Another possibility is that his followers exaggerated his words and deeds after his death.
- eneifert 10y ago
  But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. Seems unreasonable that they would die for something they know is a lie. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Christian_martyrs
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > But his followers were all willing to die because they believed Jesus rose from the dead and they saw it. There is very little objective reason to believe that to be the case. There are (themselves mostly unsubstantiated) stories that a number of the inner circle of contemporaries, some of whom are also identified as witnesses of the resurrection, died for the faith, which is both considerably less than "all of his followers", and considerably less established as objective historical fact rather than part of the same system of mythology. It's certainly a fact that a little later, a lot of people who could not have been witnesses to the resurrection at the time it is held to have happened died for the faith (whether willing or not), but they obviously don't support the argument you are making. You can't rest a claim that one element of myth is objective fact on the argument that other elements of the same myth -- with no more objective support -- seem more likely if the first element is true.
    - posterboy 10y ago
      >You can't rest a claim Well that's the right idea, though. Taking it a few steps further, what would be more likely, that the vatican is a power hungry institution like any other, or that a pope is chosen by god himself, sometimes two of opposing believe at the same time even.

waynecochran 10y ago

Clickbait or not, many of the great scientists and mathematicians of the past thought that the existence of a benevolent God meant that the universe might be understandable and that there may be elegant laws underpinning how the universe works. To me its sort of a mystery why the universe is understandable at all -- e.g., the elegance and compactness of Maxwell's Equations for the complicated phenomenon of electromagnetism is one such example.

opaqe 10y ago

Agreed. You could pick a historical thinker at random and spin the same article making leaps into the future. Being self-identified as religious and influenced by God was the norm even well into Enlightenment. This sort of retrospective coronation is the positive version of "judging people without regard for their historical context." You could also pick any historical figure and say how their pro-slavery and anti-feminist thinking "helped unlocked the secrets of ____." But no one would praise or click that article on the face of it.