tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3058076626975877782.post6730832461240625081..comments2023-06-20T01:19:05.270-07:00Comments on Crossings: WWJB? (Where Would Jesus be Buried?)Bruce N. Fiskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05782727488002675315noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3058076626975877782.post-17509456530904695332007-03-17T00:31:00.000-07:002007-03-17T00:31:00.000-07:00Thanks, fiddler. A few further thoughts:1. I'm not...Thanks, fiddler. A few further thoughts:<BR/><BR/>1. I'm not quite sure Tabor or Feuerveger would want to say they "can discover historical truth by statistical methods." They are, rather, attempting to recover lost history through all the standard means: archaeology, epigraphy, historical inquiry, analysis, etc. Surely there is <I>some</I> role for statistics to play. Most people aren't rejecting their appeal to statistics outright; they are, rather, disputing the particular way they are running the numbers and/or challenging the historical assumptions on which their statistical analysis is based. <BR/><BR/>2. As for your second point, you may be right: there are far too many unknowns and too many unexcavated tombs. And our catalogue of ossuary inscriptions probably skews the data toward the upper echelons of society. <BR/><BR/>But if I have a class of 50 freshmen in which there are, say, 4 girls named Alison, I'd feel fairly confident suggesting that 8% of all freshman females in the college had that name. Is that really so irrational a move to make? How far off might I be? I'm not saying it is that easy--and remember, I do not think the Talpiot tomb belonged to Jesus' family--but I don't think we need an "exhaustive census record" to make qualified, responsible judgments about the first century. <BR/><BR/>3. Regarding where the numbers were "pulled" from, I'd say they came from the careful (but flawed) tables of a trained statistician.Bruce N. Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05782727488002675315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3058076626975877782.post-72252954856835525532007-03-14T21:27:00.000-07:002007-03-14T21:27:00.000-07:00I'm not a statistician but I work with statistics ...I'm not a statistician but I work with statistics in my profession and I understand them well enough to know that his statistical argument is bogus. <BR/><BR/>First of all, its an entirely false principle that we can discover historical truth by statistical methods. Statistics predict the future, not the past (though in certain circumstances, they may help shed some light on things if used properly). <BR/><BR/>Example; Historical question: Did Jane win the lottery in 2006? The odds of winning are 1 in 10 million, therefore no she didn't. <BR/><BR/>This argument doesnt amount to historical research. In fact, there was a woman who won over a million dollars in the lottery two years in a row (and thats not the first time it's happened). So the point is, that extremely uncommon things happen constantly. <BR/><BR/>Now secondly, unless you had a fairly exhaustive census record from 1st century Palestine, there's no way to quantify the likelihood of any given name at that time. <BR/><BR/>You'd have a tough time doing that for the early 1700s forget about 1st century. <BR/><BR/>Even though we have samples in written literature of various names, any statistician would tell you that those numbers do not represent an unbiased sample of the population. <BR/><BR/>He says 599/600 and I'm saying he pulled that number out of his ass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com