Timeline for Can Bayes' theorem be used non-fallaciously to argue for miracles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6 at 18:10 | comment | added | user80226 | @RogerV. You are raising a very interesting and valid point, which is how to define a prior probability P(M) for miracles in light of the scientific consensus based on rigorously documented experiments, along with testimonial accounts that lack that level of rigor. In the end I agree with the other answers that suggest all these probability estimations are at the end of the day extremely subjective. They are judgment calls. | |
| Dec 6 at 15:19 | comment | added | Roger V. | Your probability P(M) is based on human reports (which are highly subjective), but does not incorporate scientific viewpoint (which is a result of rigorous studies.) Thus, if we consider a probability of a thermodynamic system adopting a highly improbable configuration - like all the atoms gathering in half of a container or a decomposing human body coming back to life, we have to deal with numbers like P(M)~ 10^{-N_A}, where the Avogadro constant itself is N_A=6 * 10^{23}. This is prohibitive. | |
| Dec 5 at 16:45 | comment | added | user80226 | @ScottRowe I mean, right now? sure, but 10 years down the line, how could I possibly know? | |
| Dec 5 at 12:07 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | "Is that your final answer"? | |
| Dec 5 at 10:16 | history | edited | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 849 characters in body
|
| Dec 4 at 16:18 | history | answered | user80226 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |