Timeline for Can Bayes' theorem be used non-fallaciously to argue for miracles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5 at 12:20 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | It is especially hard to rule out other causes when you don't know about them. This is why we learn stuff: to make it easier to reject wrong ideas. We can't go straight to the Truth, but we can, as the nondual folks say, "back away from untruth." | |
| Dec 5 at 0:59 | vote | accept | user80226 | ||
| Dec 4 at 16:26 | comment | added | user80226 | You are welcome. I posted my own analysis here: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/119894/80226 | |
| Dec 4 at 15:52 | comment | added | Ray | @user80226 Thanks for fixing that. I added the equations at the last second to tie it back into Bayes' theorem and apparently didn't think enough about what I was typing. | |
| Dec 4 at 11:03 | history | edited | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed the math the second-to-last sentence.
|
| Dec 3 at 21:55 | history | edited | Ray | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 20 characters in body
|
| Dec 3 at 21:49 | history | answered | Ray | CC BY-SA 4.0 |