How to lie using numbers: "Mathematically, each time an additional candidate is suggested, the probability decreases that any given name is the true author." This is not true; the probability for each candidate is independent from every other candidate and does not change simply because a new candidate has been suggested. For an analogy think of a running race with the 10 best runners on earth; adding more racers will not decrease the probability of the first 10 runners winning - it just means more marginal runners have entered the race. It takes more than simply being "suggested" to have any effect on the other SAQ candidates. Would adding J.K. Rowling to the list decrease the probability that Bacon was the author? not in the slightest. The adding of candidates reflects discontent with the currently accepted group of candidates, nothing more. Suggesting a new candidate simply means that someone else is dissatisfied with the Stratfordian excuse, not that they may have solved the question or even put forth a reasonable answer.
The whole authorship question is gaining such traction that Stanley finally caved in and got into a dialogue with a sceptic... but - in the final analysis - they're using Ros to sell their book. But it won't sell. Unless you have to read it to pass an exam
Adding names to a list of authorship candidates only decreases the probability of any particular one is the actual author if you were drawing a name randomly from the group (and assuming that the actual author was included in that group of names.) You might argue that a growing list of candidates implies that the body of evidence that we have is insufficient to make a broadly compelling case for any particular author.
How to lie using numbers:
"Mathematically, each time an additional candidate is suggested, the probability decreases that any given name is the true author." This is not true; the probability for each candidate is independent from every other candidate and does not change simply because a new candidate has been suggested. For an analogy think of a running race with the 10 best runners on earth; adding more racers will not decrease the probability of the first 10 runners winning - it just means more marginal runners have entered the race. It takes more than simply being "suggested" to have any effect on the other SAQ candidates. Would adding J.K. Rowling to the list decrease the probability that Bacon was the author? not in the slightest. The adding of candidates reflects discontent with the currently accepted group of candidates, nothing more. Suggesting a new candidate simply means that someone else is dissatisfied with the Stratfordian excuse, not that they may have solved the question or even put forth a reasonable answer.
"...the probability for each candidate is independent from every other candidate..."
Yet they all have exactly the same probability: zero.
The whole authorship question is gaining such traction that Stanley finally caved in and got into a dialogue with a sceptic... but - in the final analysis - they're using Ros to sell their book. But it won't sell. Unless you have to read it to pass an exam
I bought a copy. It was pretty good.
03:59 Evolution has nothing to do with theism. These guys don't know what they're talking about.
07:19 well the guy from Stratford could be one of 78 then! It applies to him too - doesn't tell you anything about who is right.
Adding names to a list of authorship candidates only decreases the probability of any particular one is the actual author if you were drawing a name randomly from the group (and assuming that the actual author was included in that group of names.)
You might argue that a growing list of candidates implies that the body of evidence that we have is insufficient to make a broadly compelling case for any particular author.
Portland Concordia has closed its doors, though the SARC was closed down long before that.
More.strawmen.attacks..ugh
Name one.