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...
| Publié dans: | Perichoresis |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Sciendo, De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| Dans: |
Perichoresis
|
| Classifications IxTheo: | HA Bible KCB Papauté VB Herméneutique; philosophie |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Luz
B probability arguments B Intertextuality B papal doctrine |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Référence: | Kritik von "On the Plausibility of the Papacy: Scaling the Walls of Contemporary Criticisms (2022)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Perichoresis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0031 |