No, I'm not and obviously neither are you. You have missed my whole point on this and gone on an irrelevant tangent as usual. I don't have to find mathematicians that agree with his findings and he doesn't have to be a "towering genius as you put it to single handedly develop a revolutionary way of doing history which will be widely adopted in the future". If you had bothered to have read his book, you would know his reasons for challenging the consensus on the historicity of Jesus and would not have to appear to be so ignorant on the subject.Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:57 pmThat's a fair point. The difficulty here though is that Richard Carrier is using mathematics on historical claims regarding singular events. SEG has been unable to find a single mathematician who will endorse what Carrier has done. If he can find such a mathematician it will not prove Carrier is right, and that is where the parallel with advertising would come in, because you can generally find at least one expert to endorse even the most eccentric of views. Similarly finding mathematicians who criticise him, and there are some, does not prove his is wrong. But it has to be significant that the balance is against Carrier. The book was peer reviewed by a mathematician so there must be someone out there who at least can confirm it does not contain mathematical errors.

It is not impossible that Carrier is a towering genius who has single handedly developed a revolutionary way of doing history which will be widely adopted in the future but it seems on the face of it improbable. You could probably do a Bayesian calculation on it. You would need to look at all the people who thought they had single handedly revolutionised a field of study and then check how many of them really had. That would give you the prior odds of Carrier being right. But applied mathematics often has progressed by people finding new applications for branches of mathematics that were thought not to have any or not to have any in this sphere. The famous example is G H Hardy a pure mathematician who proudly declared that none of his theories were the slightest use to mankind, and then it was found after his death that his theories had applications in biology and quantum theory. Maybe Carrier is like those people who found use for Hardy's theories in unexpected ways, and maybe mathematicians are not yet ready to accept this. But the odds are against it at present and SEG has freely admitted that he is not competent to judge Carrier’s maths.

If you want to discuss it seriously, at least do what Og did and borrow it if you can't afford it. Spouting uninformed comments makes you appear dull.