I’ll leave this up because it’s incredibly funny and, fair is fair,
does use the word “Bayes” a lot, and also I’m really hoping that it’s an
equally awful asshole trying to turn the tables on Richard Carrier, who
is if memory serves at least somewhat LessWrong-adjacent, but mostly
because the sneers over at /r/badphilosophy were not up to par (actually
they were fine, I must have been in a bad mood)
I’m also tickled that as /r/badbayes as it is, it is significantly
more sophisticated and actually Bayesian than 90% of the Bayes fandom
are capable of over among the usual designated targets
>actually Bayesian
Is it though? I have some bones to pick here as well.
First off, nowhere in the post does he use the *actual* Bayesian formula, P(H|E) = P(E|H) \* P(H) / P(E).
He also introduces some superfluous "background" (B) term which necessitates some idiosyncratic "&" notation -- his "prior probability" is written out something like P(H | B) whereas the posterior probability is written out as "P(H | E & B)", but since we're never really talking about "probability distribution without taking into account the background", it's far from clear what "P(H)" is supposed to mean.
I feel safe in interpreting his "Pr(M|B)" as a "P(H)", as he translates it as "the probability of a miracle (henceforth the resurrection) given background knowledge \[only\]". He assigns 75% to this value, since "the Christian God is probably true" is not "evidence", it's "background knowledge".
* Broke: the resurrection is powerful evidence for God!
* Woke: God is powerful evidence for the resurrection!
His "Pr(E|M&B)" is clearly mislabeled. He describes it as "probability of the resurrection given the evidence". But "the resurrection" is the hypothesis here, so actually he's describing the P(H|E) term -- the posterior probability, i.e. the very thing we were supposed to be calculating in the first place. And of course he assigns 95% to this value, because "the evidence" discussed here is basically "the entire New Testament taken at face value *except* for the resurrection itself, perhaps with a few minor assists from Josephus or Tacitus to corroborate the existence of a 'Jesus' operating in the area around that time".
So even if this was purely a class on Bayesian statistics and we didn't even *bother* trying to give estimates to any of the terms here, I could only award a handful of points for *maybe* identifying P(H) correctly, but otherwise he's using the wrong formula and is utterly confused as to the other terms of the equation.
I said “significantly more…actually Bayesian” than people who change their minds about how many black people are stupid on the basis of a blogpost and call it “updating my priors” without even typing a number
You don’t seriously think I read the post in full?
“First we have to discuss our priors: 1. God probably exists because
how else does anything exist? (no I will not explain further) 2. Jesus
previously did magical miracles (which definitely happened and were
definitely magic)”
And you know what, I actually agree with this guy; if you accept
those two priors, Jesus’ resurrection seems very reasonable!
This is basically the same exact logic as the basilisk and the Monty Python "witch trial": 1) assume this series of increasingly ridiculous assertions, 2) the conclusion is obvious!
Obviously there’s going to be some disagreement, so all that can be
done here is try to come up with a number, and if you disagree you can
come up with your own (same goes for other background knowledge).
If God did exist, then it should be expected that something like
Jesus should happen, because God would want us to know He exists, what
He’s like and for us to have a plan for the future
And definitely the most effective way to do that is to take human
form, live an unremarkable life for 32 years, wander around the desert
for a couple more years, and die.
the wild thing is seeing christians who don't dispute an old earth and accept that we were around for like a million years worshipping bears and shit, eventually forming all kinds of these very elaborate religions all over the world, and then suddenly god picks out this random little tribe in the middle east and says "you guys get special treatment". And this is somehow the OPTIMAL way to spread his word. man if god actually does exist i really hope i can get at least 2-3 questions in before he sics the 11 foot tall demons with cock hands on me, i'm so confused.
Pop Bayesians is a brilliant machine for turning three wild guesses
that you pulled out your ass into one number that you’re absurdly
overconfident about. I’ve also seen people that don’t even bother with
the actual bayes part and just nudge their made up number by an
arbitrary amount towards whoever argued with them last. Impossible to
spot any problems with these approaches!
i can’t bring myself to read this, looks like a mountain of post-hoc
rationalization for why we should think poorly documented religious
claims from 2000 years ago are true.
if u are religious that’s fine, but it’s not based off a
dispassionate analysis of the evidence, which is basically a religious
book and a few passing mentions by historians, it’s because the story
resonates with you and faith takes care of the rest.
I mostly agree.
I will say though that the attempts to verify/disprove Jesus’s existence from a dispassionate stance are fascinating and revealing about how even an attempt to have no bias is a bias in and of itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus
which I think is in line with the point of your comment.
Without reading it and based on my exp listening to fundamentalists/very religious people, im going to bet he just assumes the bible stories are true and works on from there.
In fact a few days before the linked post above this was posted https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/vri2rr/a_bayesian_argument_against_the_resurrection_of/ so we could just be sneering at a parody.
Otoh, they have been having a bayes fight over this shit for a long time it seems.
> parody
I skimmed the post history and they seem completely serious to me. It seems more likely that this user is trying to be serious and is just very, very bad at it.
Yeah, I watched Carrier on YouTube, debating (IIRC) Bart Ehrman. Even as the most prominent & credentialed exponent of Bayesian apologetics, his arguments were laughable. Change a couple of his assumptions and the whole thing simply melts away.
Christianity is easily superior other potential religions.
It’s always nice when you can just dismiss every other culture and
thousands of years of belief and theological discussion in a single
sentence, isn’t it?
So I thought this might be a troll for a while, but I think this
later reply is evidence that no, this motherfucker is going to estimate
the number and proximity of angelic presences at the apex of a textile
manufacturing implement.
I’ll leave this up because it’s incredibly funny and, fair is fair, does use the word “Bayes” a lot, and also I’m really hoping that it’s an equally awful asshole trying to turn the tables on Richard Carrier, who is if memory serves at least somewhat LessWrong-adjacent, but mostly because the sneers over at /r/badphilosophy were not up to par (actually they were fine, I must have been in a bad mood)
I’m also tickled that as /r/badbayes as it is, it is significantly more sophisticated and actually Bayesian than 90% of the Bayes fandom are capable of over among the usual designated targets
“First we have to discuss our priors: 1. God probably exists because how else does anything exist? (no I will not explain further) 2. Jesus previously did magical miracles (which definitely happened and were definitely magic)”
And you know what, I actually agree with this guy; if you accept those two priors, Jesus’ resurrection seems very reasonable!
Read: my prophet could beat up their prophet in a fight and thus my God is the most realist QED
Everything aside, wtf is wrong with that sub?!
Debate a Christian but every flair is Atheist?! lmfao
They’re so close
The internet has destroyed me.
I cannot tell if this is a hilarious satire of Bayes rationalism or the ramblings of a madman.
And definitely the most effective way to do that is to take human form, live an unremarkable life for 32 years, wander around the desert for a couple more years, and die.
Pop Bayesians is a brilliant machine for turning three wild guesses that you pulled out your ass into one number that you’re absurdly overconfident about. I’ve also seen people that don’t even bother with the actual bayes part and just nudge their made up number by an arbitrary amount towards whoever argued with them last. Impossible to spot any problems with these approaches!
i can’t bring myself to read this, looks like a mountain of post-hoc rationalization for why we should think poorly documented religious claims from 2000 years ago are true.
if u are religious that’s fine, but it’s not based off a dispassionate analysis of the evidence, which is basically a religious book and a few passing mentions by historians, it’s because the story resonates with you and faith takes care of the rest.
The Bible has a whole bunch of random guys raised from the dead, but go off chief.
Richard Carrier wrote a whole book using Bayes to reach the opposite conclusion
It’s always nice when you can just dismiss every other culture and thousands of years of belief and theological discussion in a single sentence, isn’t it?
Who needs faith when you have Bayes?
P(tl|dr)
So I thought this might be a troll for a while, but I think this later reply is evidence that no, this motherfucker is going to estimate the number and proximity of angelic presences at the apex of a textile manufacturing implement.
I’m not reading all that but I assume the wrestling probability thing is in there somewhere.
This is the stupidest post I have ever read. Amazing find!