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...
| Publicado en: | Perichoresis |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Otros Autores: | |
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Sciendo, De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| En: |
Perichoresis
|
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | HA Biblia KCB Papa VB Hermenéutica ; Filosofía |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
Luz
B probability arguments B Intertextuality B papal doctrine |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Sumario: | 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 |
| Reference: | Kritik von "On the Plausibility of the Papacy: Scaling the Walls of Contemporary Criticisms (2022)"
|
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Perichoresis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0031 |