Bayesian analysis for beginners

[Paprika]

For the moment, let's assume that that is the case. In this respect, does Bayesian analysis differ from any alternative method of historical inquiry?

In terms of the historical judgment being 'subjective'? No, it does not differ in this respect.

[Doug Shaver]

In terms of the historical judgment being 'subjective'? No, it does not differ in this respect.

I do not equate "I assert that it is so" with "It is my subjective judgment."

[Paprika]

I do not equate "I assert that it is so" with "It is my subjective judgment."

I am not claiming that when a person says "I assert that it is so" that he necessarily intends to convey "It is my subjective judgment", rather that when he says "I assert that it is so" with respect to the value of a prior probability of a historical event he is making a 'subjective' judgment.

[Doug Shaver]

I am not claiming that when a person says "I assert that it is so" that he necessarily intends to convey "It is my subjective judgment", rather that when he says "I assert that it is so" with respect to the value of a prior probability of a historical event he is making a 'subjective' judgment.

OK. So, do you believe there are any objective judgments in the study of history?

[robrecht]

I think there are degrees of subjectivity and inter-subjectivity in the great majority of (especially ancient) historical judgments.

[Paprika]

OK. So, do you believe there are any objective judgments in the study of history?

There is no Cartesian objectivity.

[Epoetker]

All pretensions to objectivity are pretensions to abstract Godhood, and should me made, if at all, only by worshipers of that God.

[Doug Shaver]

There is no Cartesian objectivity.

When I took my class on Descartes, we didn't cover his view of objectivity. Does it differ from what people nowadays usually mean when they talk about objectivity?

[Paprika]

When I took my class on Descartes, we didn't cover his view of objectivity. Does it differ from what people nowadays usually mean when they talk about objectivity?

I have in mind two main conceptions of the objective. Roughly, the first is that there is something real out there. The second is that there is a unbiased, 'privileged' perspective from which to regard the real.

My claim is that the latter does not exist for us humans.

[Doug Shaver]

I have in mind two main conceptions of the objective. Roughly, the first is that there is something real out there. The second is that there is a unbiased, 'privileged' perspective from which to regard the real.

My claim is that the latter does not exist for us humans.

I agree with you on both points.

[shunyadragon]

That they've used it doesn't validate the methodology.

Bayesian Analysis maybe useful if you have hard data, but it is dependent on the assumptions of the information and data used, which maybe easily manipulated when dealing when subjective assumptions are made concerning the data input.

Bayesian analysis has been very successful in analyzing archeological data.

[shunyadragon]

I have in mind two main conceptions of the objective. Roughly, the first is that there is something real out there.

I consider this too vague and not useful.

The second is that there is a unbiased, 'privileged' perspective from which to regard the real.

My claim is that the latter does not exist for us humans.

Agreed.

The problems with the above appear when on tries to define a slippery concept like 'Objective morality.'

I prefer to use 'objective' in the more practical sense; as evidence in the real physical world to justify falsification in science, historical evidence, or a hypothesis for an argument.

[Doug Shaver]

but it is dependent on the assumptions of the information and data used, which maybe easily manipulated when dealing when subjective assumptions are made concerning the data input.

If the question is: Does this evidence support that conclusion? then what method of answering the question is not dependent on such assumptions?

[shunyadragon]

If the question is: Does this evidence support that conclusion? then what method of answering the question is not dependent on such assumptions?

It depends on what you have to use as evidence. In terms of evaluating archeological finds you have objective hard data. If you are trying to justify the Resurrection you have none.

[Doug Shaver]

If the question is: Does this evidence support that conclusion? then what method of answering the question is not dependent on such assumptions?

It depends on what you have to use as evidence. In terms of evaluating archeological finds you have objective hard data. If you are trying to justify the Resurrection you have none.

Those objective hard data are evidence, yes. You were saying, in reference to Bayesian analysis, that it was "dependent on the assumptions of the information and data used." I was asking for an example of a method of analyzing evidence that does not depend on any such assumptions. Can you explain how an archeologist who has discovered some artifact might construct an assumption-free inference about what the artifact tells us about the past?