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...
| Опубликовано в: : | Perichoresis |
|---|---|
| Главный автор: | |
| Другие авторы: | |
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Опубликовано: |
Sciendo, De Gruyter
[2020]
|
| В: |
Perichoresis
|
| Индексация IxTheo: | HA Библия KCB Папство VB Герменевтика ; Философия |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Luz
B probability arguments B Intertextuality B papal doctrine |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Итог: | 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)"
|
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Perichoresis
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2478/perc-2020-0031 |