"proving something to be unlikely is equivalent to proving something false."
Is this something you infer from Carrier's argument or is something that the author explicitly avers? I haven't read the book but am curious about the subject.
Just a bit of my own background: I've found Bayes' theorem very useful myself, for example in determining reasonable courses of treatment for medical conditions, where there are reasonably good prior probabilities available. and the incidence of the condition being tested is reasonably well-known. How this can be applied to historical studies is an interesting topic.
This is a complex subject and, if you like, go ahead and post. However, if you feel that this is too much to address intelligibly in a post on Amazon, is there some treatment of the subject on-line you could point to?
Answering my own question I see on Google that searching for Vridar, bayes theorem and historical method yields at least one hit where there is a discussion of this topic. Whether good or not I don't yet know.