Assessing Papal Probabilities: A Reply to Joseph E. Blado
Joseph Blado critiqued my probabilistic arguments against Roman papal doctrines by deploying probability arguments, particularly Bayesian arguments, in favor of the papacy. He contends that there are good C-inductive arguments for papal doctrine that, taken together, add up to a good P-inductive arg...
| Τόπος έκδοσης: | Perichoresis |
|---|---|
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
| Άλλοι συγγραφείς: | |
| Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο |
| Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
| Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Φόρτωση...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Έκδοση: |
Sciendo, De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| Στο/Στη: |
Perichoresis
|
| Σημειογραφίες IxTheo: | HA Βίβλος KCB Πάπας VB Λογική, Φιλοσοφική Ερμηνευτική, Φιλοσοφικό δόγμα της γνώσης |
| Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά: | B
Luz
B probability arguments B Intertextuality B papal doctrine |
| Διαθέσιμο Online: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Σύνοψη: | Joseph Blado critiqued my probabilistic arguments against Roman papal doctrines by deploying probability arguments, particularly Bayesian arguments, in favor of the papacy. He contends that there are good C-inductive arguments for papal doctrine that, taken together, add up to a good P-inductive argument. I argue that his inductive arguments fail, and moreover that there are three good C-inductive arguments against papal doctrine in the neighborhood of his failed arguments. I conclude by critiquing his retreat to what he calls ‘skeptical papalism’ as a last ditch sort of move to defend papal doctrine. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2284-7308 |
| Αναφορά: | Kritik von "On the Plausibility of the Papacy: Scaling the Walls of Contemporary Criticisms (2022)"
|
| Περιλαμβάνει: | Enthalten in: Perichoresis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0031 |