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...
| Pubblicato in: | Perichoresis |
|---|---|
| Autore principale: | |
| Altri autori: | |
| Tipo di documento: | Elettronico Articolo |
| Lingua: | Inglese |
| Verificare la disponibilità: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Caricamento...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Pubblicazione: |
Sciendo, De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| In: |
Perichoresis
|
| Notazioni IxTheo: | HA Bibbia KCB Papa VB Ermeneutica; Filosofia |
| Altre parole chiave: | B
Luz
B probability arguments B Intertextuality B papal doctrine |
| Accesso online: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Riepilogo: | 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 |
| Riferimento: | Kritik von "On the Plausibility of the Papacy: Scaling the Walls of Contemporary Criticisms (2022)"
|
| Comprende: | Enthalten in: Perichoresis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0031 |