asbestosman wrote:I think apologists could even use this to their advantage. For example. They might use it to claim that since none of the 3 witnesses ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon, this is evidence that their testimony is true--or at least that they believe it.
Yes they could make use of it, like a number of Christian Apologists have used it in defense of the resurrection. But eye witness testimony is not the ground I would think an apologist should attempt to take, When Babbage was responding to Hume’s comments on miracles, he showed that if you got 13 witnesses who accurately reported events 99 out of 100 times, one would be rationally justified in believing a miracle.
What that does is a set a rock hard standard to meet, one that I just do not think Mopologists want anything to do with.
Aristotle Smith wrote:I don't think Bayesian analysis will affect Mormon apologetics much at all. Bayesian analysis requires a couple of things that I don't think the boys and girls at FARMS/NAMIRS have ever really done. First, it requires you to actually have a hypothesis about some states of affairs. Second, it requires you to be able to rationally decide what counts as evidence given that hypothesis. If you don't have both of these, you can't really do a Bayesian analysis of a given situation.
Exactly. It is another case of Mormon Apologists simply refusing to engage modern analysis because of the risk it entails.
mfbukowski wrote:But is this a derail then too? Now I am very confused.
I thought the thread was about if Bayesian analysis had anything to do with Mormonism and proving it true.
Silly me! I guess you were right.
This thread has nothing to do with the truth of Mormonism, so I guess I was mistaken. Sorry for the derail, continue talking about evidence of absence or whatever
I like you a lot more when you aren't this snarky.
Well I am just trying to get educated, really. My telling you guys what I think doesn't work so I thought I would just ask questions and let you explain your views to me.
Suppose I just do that and dispense with the sarcasm- yeah, that seems to be a good approach.
It's just that everyone is so positive that I am wrong, I will see if they can answer my questions. After all, then they will be able to show me how wrong I am.
asbestosman wrote:I think apologists could even use this to their advantage. For example. They might use it to claim that since none of the 3 witnesses ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon, this is evidence that their testimony is true--or at least that they believe it.
Yes they could make use of it, like a number of Christian Apologists have used it in defense of the resurrection. But eye witness testimony is not the ground I would think an apologist should attempt to take, When Babbage was responding to Hume’s comments on miracles, he showed that if you got 13 witnesses who accurately reported events 99 out of 100 times, one would be rationally justified in believing a miracle.
What that does is a set a rock hard standard to meet, one that I just do not think Mopologists want anything to do with.
What evidence would it take to prove that Jesus was the savior of the world? What would be the Bayesian hypothesis in that case?
Runtu wrote: I like you a lot more when you aren't this snarky.
Well I am just trying to get educated, really. My telling you guys what I think doesn't work so I thought I would just ask questions and let you explain your views to me.
Suppose I just do that and dispense with the sarcasm- yeah, that seems to be a good approach.
It's just that everyone is so positive that I am wrong, I will see if they can answer my questions. After all, then they will be able to show me how wrong I am.
Does that meet your approval?
Did you read the paper Mr.Stakhanovite posted? I'd suggest those are table stakes for this discussion. The questions you asked betray your lack of understanding; tolerable had those questions not been accompanied by snark.
Perhaps you can move the discussion along with informed questions?
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
mfbukowski wrote:Well I know you are all much smarter than I am about all these things, but I am just wondering how one would analyze this statement...
From the paper:
Bayesian epistemologists use a theorem from probability theory to explicate various notions of evidence and confirmation.
None of the propositions you listed have anything to do with evidence and confirmation, no one claimed in this thread or in the paper that Bayes can work for all propositions, no one thinks that. Bayesian analysis is just a small part of Justification in modern Anglophone Epistemology.
mfbukowski wrote:What evidence would it take to prove that Jesus was the savior of the world? What would be the Bayesian hypothesis in that case?
That is not the argument Christian apologists make using Bayes, what they argue is that the tomb was found empty and that his resurrection is the best explanation for that empty tomb.
TAO wrote:In other words, a lack of artifacts does not exclusively lead to the conclusion that Nephite civilization did not exist. Furthermore, on an issue of likeliness, this becomes an even stronger invalid because we are limited on what we can suppose is a 'Nephite' artifact, because we haven't ever actually determined if one is (in other words, it's all based on inference). Because of this, there is literally an infinite possible list of permutations and possibilities that can be overlooked; you can't search for something if you don't know what it looks like.
Sorry TAO, you have it backwards. The postulation is that there was a Nephite civilization. No evidence exists that would bring the question up other than the musings of a questionable person.
Given that (and you really have to give that), there is no reason to give any credulity to the postulation unless some (any) evidence is put forward to prove it. None has come forth. The postulation stands as false until proven otherwise.
There are mountains of artifacts that have been found in the Americas. None have any relationship to a Nephite civilization. If one is found, you may have a case. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
MrStakhanovite wrote:None of the propositions you listed have anything to do with evidence and confirmation, no one claimed in this thread or in the paper that Bayes can work for all propositions, no one thinks that. Bayesian analysis is just a small part of Justification in modern Anglophone Epistemology.
I see. Thanks for answering me.
So this type of analysis it is not appropriate then for religious questions like whether or not Jesus was the savior of the world who took away our sins?
How about questions like whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet?