Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A successful confirmatory probabilistic argument may shif... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A successful confirmatory probabilistic argument may shift the burden of proof onto those who deny the conclusion M

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If there is a substantial body of evidence in favor of M, those who deny M must explain either why antecedent presumption against M overrides this evidence or what other evidential considerations mitigate against M
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A confirmatory probabilistic argument, if successful, establishes a substantial body of evidence in favor of M
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian confirmation shifts credence incrementally but never transfers the epistemic burden of proof, which remains with the positive claimant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Burden of proof is a pragmatic-dialectical notion tied to extraordinary claims, not a function of evidential weight alone (cf. Rescher's epistemology of presumption).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Miracles by definition make extraordinary claims, so the asymmetric burden persists regardless of confirmatory probabilistic gains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's argument, reconstructed by Sobel and Earman, entails that prior probability of testimonial reliability caps any posterior probability assigned to M.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the prior probability of M is sufficiently low, no finite body of testimonial evidence can raise P(M) high enough to constitute a substantial evidential case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A confirmatory probabilistic argument, if successful, establishes a substantial ...Bayesian confirmation shifts credence incrementally but never transfers the epis...Burden of proof is a pragmatic-dialectical notion tied to extraordinary claims, ...Hume's argument, reconstructed by Sobel and Earman, entails that prior probabili...
    +3 moreShow less
    If the prior probability of M is sufficiently low, no finite body of testimonial...If there is a substantial body of evidence in favor of M, those who deny M must ...Miracles by definition make extraordinary claims, so the asymmetric burden persi...

    Similar

    A confirmatory probabilistic argument, if successful, establishes a su...90%The objection that probabilistic arguments are only of interest when f...81%Miracles grounded in probabilistic reasoning can still be credible78%If there is a substantial body of evidence in favor of M, those who de...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: miracles
    View source passageHide passage
    The confirmatory form of the probabilistic argument is more modest; it aims to show that there is a considerable contribution to the argument for \(M\) arising from the facts indicated (McGrew and McGrew 2009). It has been objected (Oppy 2006: 5–6) that probabilistic arguments of this sort are of no interest unless they are founded on all of the relevant available evidence. But this objection would, if legitimate, count equally against the use of arguments from comparison of likelihoods in scien
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit