3 ms·

> Occam's razor points pretty clearly towards a historical Jesus Too late for me to edit my sibling comment; but it just occurred to me that you are using the

> Occam's razor points pretty clearly towards a historical Jesus Too late for me to edit my sibling comment; but it just occurred to me that you are using the same methodology as Carrier to come to conclusions about historical facts. You call it Occam's razor. Carrier calls it Bayesian probability. But the idea is the same: what is the most likely (most probable) interpretation of the presented evidence. It is funny that, appealing to the same methodology, you arrive at different conclusions.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Occam's razor is not an argument from probability, it's an argument from simplicity. Why invent a conspiracy (or a myth) when it's easier to accept the well-propagated narrative emerging from a single point in time and nothing about the situation indicates conspiracy (or myth)? The idea of assigning probability to any aspect of this question is ridiculous. He's called a crank because the consensus historian opinion is that he'a a crank.
- azangru 2y ago
  But the argument from simplicity is the same as the argument from probability. The reason that a complex explanation is less probable than a simple one is because a complex explanation contains multiple parts (which is what makes it complex), and the probabilities of each of these parts multiply to produce the probability of the whole, which of course quickly makes this overall probability very small.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    > But the argument from simplicity is the same as the argument from probability. No, it's not. One is a argument about the semantics of the rhetorics and the other is quantitative dealing with lists of claims about the world. > The reason that a complex explanation is less probable than a simple one is because a complex explanation contains multiple parts (which is what makes it complex), and the probabilities of each of these parts multiply to produce the probability of the whole, which of course quickly makes this overall probability very small. There is no straightforward connection between probability and the complexity of a set of claims. Sometimes probable events are very complex to explain; sometimes highly unlikely events are simple.
    - Vecr 2y ago
      Maybe? Yes you can take No Free Lunch at face value, or... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

Occam's razor is not an argument from probability, it's an argument from simplicity. Why invent a conspiracy (or a myth) when it's easier to accept the well-propagated narrative emerging from a single point in time and nothing about the situation indicates conspiracy (or myth)? The idea of assigning probability to any aspect of this question is ridiculous. He's called a crank because the consensus historian opinion is that he'a a crank.

azangru 2y ago
But the argument from simplicity is the same as the argument from probability. The reason that a complex explanation is less probable than a simple one is because a complex explanation contains multiple parts (which is what makes it complex), and the probabilities of each of these parts multiply to produce the probability of the whole, which of course quickly makes this overall probability very small.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  > But the argument from simplicity is the same as the argument from probability. No, it's not. One is a argument about the semantics of the rhetorics and the other is quantitative dealing with lists of claims about the world. > The reason that a complex explanation is less probable than a simple one is because a complex explanation contains multiple parts (which is what makes it complex), and the probabilities of each of these parts multiply to produce the probability of the whole, which of course quickly makes this overall probability very small. There is no straightforward connection between probability and the complexity of a set of claims. Sometimes probable events are very complex to explain; sometimes highly unlikely events are simple.
  - Vecr 2y ago
    Maybe? Yes you can take No Free Lunch at face value, or... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...