Loading...In my previous post I talked about how I go about choosing what to write a trade book on. In some cases I have chosen to write on a topic that involves a well-worked field in biblical studies or early Christianity, that has not, however, been introduced to a wider reading public. I’ve always found it highly unfortunate that scholars as a rule are not interested in communicating with non-scholars. I should be clear about one thing, though: some scholars – or rather, most scholars – simply don’t *know* how to communicate with non-scholars about whatever it is they’re doing. And to a large extent, it’s not actually their fault.
Many (most?) scholars don’t know how to communicate with others is that they were never trained to do that. In fact – this will come as a surprise to many people – back when I was in graduate school, in the 1980s, people being trained to become university teachers almost *NEVER* had any instruction on how to teach. My program was typical of most. My courses were *entirely* on academic topics – in my case, topics related to the interpretation of the New Testament and early Christianity. But the same applied to virtually all other fields I knew about: English, history, philosophy, classics – not to mention the social sciences and sciences. I never had a single course in my PhD program that had *anything* to do with teaching to, say, undergraduates.
The PhD degree was a research degree. Students were trained to be scholars. They were taught how to do ground-breaking research. They were taught how to speak the language of scholarship to other scholars. They were taught how to write academic book reviews, and academic articles, and academic books; they were taught how to deliver academic papers to academic audiences; they were taught the jargon, the lingo, the typical catch-phrases, the insider language of the field.
The one thing they were never taught was how to communicate the findings of scholarship to the non-scholar.
That seems very strange indeed, looking back on it….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong to the blog yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Thank you for writing books for people who aren’t Biblical scholars. Having access to more realistic ideas helps inoculate us from the endless drumbeat of authoritarian religion. Your example of fundamentalist Christians making their views very accessible to non-scholars is a good point. No wonder so many people hold conservative Biblical views. That is only part of the reason for religious conservatism, but it is an important part.
My experience is that you communicate very well in your books I’ve read, that is to say most of them, and in the one time I heard you speak, Dr. E.
You do have a gift and a learned skill for communicating scholarly ideas in a clear way for us Barnes and Noble readers. Few write and think so clearly.
Can I use this approach to communicate with Carrier? 🙂 🙂
Ha!!
At least in history, teaching preparation varies widely by program. My rough impression is that elite (Ivies and Chicago) do far less of that than do the next tier of schools (such as I suppose UNC to be), and that some of the attention at that next tier is more rhetorical than real. On the broader issue of reaching out to the public, though, I was struck by the fact that all three of us who went up for tenure in my department last year had used the internet to bring our work before non-academic audiences.
A question related to this theme: After the Slate article “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed,” I decided that if this was going to be a thing, I should brush up on a good scholarly case on the topic, read your DJE along with Carrier’s critique, and concluded you were so right there was barely a contest, at least from my perspective. The trick is, I’m picturing myself getting asked about this issue by either a student in a world history survey or perhaps a random coffeehouse conversation, and pondering a quick answer which can then be elaborated on if necessary. Would you say a fair summary is something like “The pattern of early mentions is exactly what we would expect to find if he were real, and probably not what we would expect to find for a (insert mythicist theory here). For example (insert example of the evidence and why it matters).”
People are hung up on the idea of proof that (theoretically) removes all doubt, just like other people say evolution is dubious because we cannot recreate the entire biological history of the earth under lab conditions.
Are you a professional historian then (teaching at a college or university)? If so, I’d like to ask you a question.
Yes, I am, specializing in Middle Eastern history from about the seventh to the tenth centuries. Startled you want to ask me a question, but feel free to ask away.
Ah great! OK, so my question is: do you know of any historians (besides Carrier) (well, and Swinburne, who is not a historian) who tries to use Bayes Theorem? What do you think of it?
I know of no historians who have done so, though it does have some currency in archaeology. I have not read his books, only his summarized on-line criticism of you (http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794) and a pdf of a conference paper he gave I can’t now find; the conference paper was on why we should apply Bayes’ Theorem to historical Jesus research. However, as far as I can tell, his invocation of Bayes’ Theorem is essentially meaningless, just another form of the way he accuses you of certain named logical fallacies instead of just saying why you are wrong in plain language. This is perhaps seen in the fact that Bayes Theorem, whatever role it plays in his book, plays no role in his answers to your critique.
Carrier himself admits that most of the assumptions historians put into their Bayes analysis will be just that, assumptions. Because of this, it is nothing but a way to force people to make their assumptions evident, which is always good. I suspect if you were to do your own Bayes Theorem work on your case for Jesus existing, little if anything would have been different.
This is on top of the fact that various people in on-line fora you can find via googling say he mangled much of his statistical analysis. I know nothing about these people, and am not qualified to judge what they say.
Ahh…adding pdf to my search string for the Carrier Bayes pdf yielded this: http://www.richardcarrier.info/CarrierDec08.pdf…notice the bottom of page 36, where he explains that the strength of your Bayes analysis is only as strong as your weakest assumption.
Hi, Bart…sorry if I’m butting in a little here, but the mention of Bayes’ Theorem made my ears prick up since that’s involved in my current PhD research in philosophy.
I haven’t looked for uses of the theorem by historians, but it has certainly been applied to problems outside the ordinary domain of statistics, such as estimating the probability of nuclear war. I’d say a major advantages of the Bayesian approach is that you can apply it even when the goal is just to make a very rough estimate of a probability. In fact, one objection many statisticians have had to the approach is that it relies too much on subjective judgment and often cannot yield precise numbers. I’d argue that actually makes it appropriate for dealing with questions where subjective judgment is inevitable.
In short, what the Bayesian framework gives you is a way of breaking down a large question into smaller (and hopefully more manageable) questions. Plenty of subjective judgments may still be needed to deal with those smaller questions. You’ll need to estimate some probabilities for them. But AFTER those estimates have been made, you can plug the numbers into the theorem and get a probability estimate that applies to the original large question. And the especially nice thing is that the final probability estimate will usually be a little better, a little more precise, than the estimates you made about the smaller questions.
For example, suppose you’re interested in the question of Jesus’ existence. There are two hypotheses: Either he existed or he didn’t. You would start out by setting aside everything you know about the specifics of the New Testament, Josephus, and so on. You’d pretend you knew nothing about modern scholarship about ancient Christianity. More or less, you’d just rely on common knowledge. On that basis, what would you say is the probability Jesus existed? In other words, how plausible is each hypothesis? Then you’d start considering more specific pieces of evidence. Given each hypothesis, how probable would it have been that Josephus wrote what he did? And so on.
The framework can be useful in isolating the source of a disagreement. If two people disagree about some large question, then you can apply the Bayesian approach and see which smaller questions they do and don’t agree on. Maybe you find it highly plausible that Jesus existed, even apart from any specific evidence bearing on the question. Maybe a mythicists, on the other hand, finds that highly implausible. Maybe you think it highly unlikely that Christian copyists would have inserted a derogatory reference to Christianity in manuscripts of Tacitus just to create spurious evidence of Jesus’ existence. Maybe mythicists consider that eventuality far more probable. This way of proceeding won’t resolve the dispute, but it may allow a clearer focus on the key points of the dispute.
I know that Carrier has written on this subject, and I’m guessing that may have been what inspired your question. I haven’t read his book, but it sounds to me like he elevates the Bayesian approach to the end-all and be-all of evaluating evidence. If that is indeed his position, then I emphatically disagree. I think it is ONE way of evaluating evidence that can sometimes be very useful. It’s no magic wand, but it is a powerful tool.
Admittedly, Bayes’ Theorem has sometimes been applied in ways that may seem far-fetched. I’ve seen it used to estimate the probability the human race will go extinct in a million years, for example. You mentioned Swinburne, and he’s just one philosopher who has applied the theorem to some very philosophical questions. But it has also seen lots of applications to more down-to-earth questions where subjective judgment is called for. One of the main areas it turns up is in attempts to predict events that are more or less unique–terrorist attacks, presidential elections, and so on.
I’d be interested to learn if any historians have in fact used the approach. I’ll add it to my (all-too-long) to-do list to look into that. There aren’t a whole lot of Bayesian historians out there, that much is sure. But I think Bayesianism definitely deserves a closer look in history departments.
A colleague I asked about this tells me the issue of Bayes Theorem and history is addressed in a book called Or Knowledge of the Past by Aviezer Tucker.
I actually have my own “argument” that I have been making in a wiring that I do from time to time about the place of literature in the high school curriculum. One of my arguments about the inability of “English” teachers to teach English is that English teachers were not trained to teach English. It might sound odd but it is true. English major are literature majors and not literacy majors. I think there is a big difference. I think that those who end up teaching English at the secondary level have not been properly trained to teach either grammar, writing, reading or language acquisition. Instead, they are literature teachers who have a lot of literary background, but no ability to affect literacy in their students. Do you think this is a plausible argument? I am wondering if Sarah might listen to it and comment as well through you. I am not advocating the removal of literature from the curriculum, but I do think that readable literature is a better alternative to improving literacy that any and all literature. What do you think?
Interesting. Even though I was an English major in college, I’ve never looked at it that way!
I am neither an historian or a mathematician, but I think Carrier is trying to use Bayes theorem to analyze qualitative data with a statistical method designed to analyze quantitative data.
I finally found the article I had bookmarked in some hard to find folder about Carrier’s use of Bayes Theorem.
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/
I think it provides a cogent argument against both Swinburne’s and Carrier’s use of the technique.
“The fact of the matter, as far as I know, and as I thought anyone would realize is that Bayes’ theorem is a theorem which follows from certain axioms. Its application to any real world situation depends upon how precisely the parameters and values of our theoretical reconstruction of a real world approximate reality. At this stage, however, I find it difficult to see how the heavily feared ‘subjectivity’ can be avoided. Simply put, plug in different values into the theorem and you’ll get a different answer. How does one decide which value to plug in?”
Hoffman goes into more detail in this article, i forgot to add. i just pulled out a paragraph that i think summarizes nicely why the theorem is not applicable. The whole article is worth a read and is not long.
Here is a supporting comment to the above mentioned article.
One of the problems with using Bayes’ theorem is that in the context of historical arguments is that you would need to have some background in mathematics to know when and when not to apply it. The reason Bayes’ theorem works for roulette wheels and other simply physical phenomena is that the results being predicted are unentangled from considerations other than the condition. That is, one spin of the roulette wheel under condition X is just like every other spin of the roulette wheel under those conditions. This cannot be said for historical circumstances which are notoriously messy. One cannot, for example, use probabilities to determine whether particular Roman emperors might have been poisoned without considering circumstances unique to their particular situation and controversies arising at the time. Such conditions make a calculation impossible since there is no precedent as the circumstances of each emperor was unique. What Carrier is doing is an example of someone with just enough knowledge to not realize he is in way over his head. At least Swinburne was an expert on the subject and perhaps knew just how far to reach. Carrier just makes a fool of himself.
Reply
Your self-training worked out beautifully! But I also agree with one of the comments above: you do have a gift.
Two YouTube examples of Carrier and Bayes Theorem:
The first: Richard Carrier’s Bayesian Challenge to Jesus Studies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IhTivMDfq8
_______________________________
The second:
Bayes Theorem: Key to the Universe, Richard Carrier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHIz-gR4xHo
______________________________
Sidenote: “Key to the Universe”? Well, at least he’s not over-stating the results 🙂
Non Scholar ?
I don’t get what the blog was about ?
Scholars not knowing how to communicate with non
Umm we’ll maybe it’s a ego thing
We’ll maybe humble is the answer especially a scholar on
Religious subjects any ( creation no matter what job title here on earth ) is should not avoid
Or hold their knowledge how about another what you know because that person can plant
Positive where they go?
If they chose,
depends on the impact left by teacher of specific studies ?
So to all those scholars ( especially religious subjects ) that don’t know how or to egotistical
The true education scholar not only learns and studies but lives and teaches not preaches
And I don’t need anything but
A resource created man from god, the internet
I can teach my self about historical evidence of my interest yes, but learning the mysteries of what jesus spoke is what some secret societies thought they had ( disciples ) lol
Learning how jesus lived and his passion for the all created is what matters and we all here together waiting for the return of the king of kings.
So I can teach my self Greek ?
Hebrew ?
Look on internet and interpret my self ?
Unless you ( TOP ) scholars are hiding something I can know just as much as you all
In a matter of years depends on dedication right ?
Thanks for teaching me what know bart . I have listened to your audio and watched almost all your videos including all rest of elaine pagels, karen king etc
SO THIS IS BART COMMUNICATING WITH NON SCHOLAR
My opinion is that non-scholar is too broad an audience. In degrees of ability to have discourse with a scholar is:
1, Aspiring Scholar
2. Open and Inquisitive Intellectual
3. Open and Pragmatic Individual
4. Slightly Close Minded Skeptic
5. Close Minded Pragmatic Individual
6. Close Minded Intellectual (Ability to participate but they know it all already)
Forget numbers 5 and 6 because you will not be able to talk to them about the proper way to cook a hot dog.
I am making the assumption that by communicating with non-scholars you mean the use of lecture, TV, radio, informative books written for the public, and text books.
Oddly enough, I agree with Josephsluna’s comment (if I have the intent right) in the last 4 lines. Reading your books is not the same as trying to tackle something like Systematic Theology where Tillich is swimming in the theological and philosophical vernacular. I use this example, albeit a little outdated and old fashioned, because it illustrates the difference between the way you write and the way a scholar writes for other scholars. You present the facts and interpretations without flexing your gray matter for all to see but your skill is clear……a gift. I think a segment of the general public enjoys your work. I do.
I have two students in college who have just taken their first classes in religion, both were OT classes. I monitored their progress carefully because they grew up going to Sunday school at our local UMC and I was very curious how they would respond to a more antiseptic and disciplined approach to Bible study. They drank it in and we still talk until the wee hours about the structure behind Bible study. Their comment was “why can’t we study religion like this at a much younger age?” My oldest graduated 2 years ago and he said the same thing but he studied the development of the early Christian Church, from 100 CE to 600 CE. My point is, I have 3 children with the same upbringing who had the same comments studying at 3 different universities. My conclusion is that academia is doing a fantastic job with presentation for numbers 1 and 2 above. I read their study guides and all their papers and I was happy!
My second example is very different. Most adult Sunday school classes focus on the application of scripture in everyday life. I was asked to teach a Sunday school class for adults on Hebrews. Being the rebel that I am, I decided to skew the lesson toward the historical context of Hebrews and present a more academic point of view and leave out traditional or fundamental doctrine. I applied source, textual, form, historical, and redaction criticisms lightly over two weeks in a power point presentation. Six weeks later, the church started a class on the history of the Christian Church. I was not asked back because I was not a member of that particular Church and to teach there you have to tithe there. I wasn’t flogged or stoned either. It seemed to be accepted. This was a UMC in a major metropolitan area in North Carolina.
My last example is about an undisciplined debate I had with a person who holds a masters degree from your very own university. Her masters was in music. I knew she was a devout Christian and I have known her since high school. She was a high achiever and is considered an intellectual in our high school circles of friends. We were discussing the movie, Son of God (Awful), and she thought it was good. I said I was glad and then I made a mistake. I asked her, why wasn’t the movie was not called, Son of Man. I thought we would have a lively debate about the differences between the two and skirt the issue of Mr. Rodgers/Brad Pitt as Jesus. She could not make the connection (or lack thereof) between the two titles even after I explained where I was going with the argument. I gave her the background material and it was not accepted.
The conclusion is, I think you are fine with numbers 1 – 3 above and you can probably entertain number 4. The ground rules of engagement have to be clear and the environment, receptive. If the rules and environment are not close to ideal, then communicating with numbers 3 – 6 are going to be problematic.
We need an edit button for the blog. LOL