The Lydia McGrew Podcast

The Lydia McGrew Podcast

Bayes, Skeptics, and the Resurrection 9

26 min · 26 de abr de 2026
Empezar
Portada del episodio Bayes, Skeptics, and the Resurrection 9

Descripción

Here Than and I talk about two pieces of mathematical malpractice in Blais and Paulogia's video on Bayes' Theorem and the resurrection. Blais tried to give the impression that Than made a mistake by his in-principle argument that testimony can (in principle) overcome even a very low prior. Blais implied that Than somehow neglected to admit that this "only holds when" the number of testimonies "approaches infinity." This is total baloney. The use of "goes to infinity" in what Than gives in his blog post is just a way of saying that there is no upper bound on how strong the evidence can get (in principle). It's a theorem. It is completely incorrect to say that somehow this "only holds if the number of testimonies approaches infinity." Second, Blais used a completely inapplicable type of statistical context to say that one would have to have at least 30 independent testimonies in order for Than's point to "kick in." Part of the reason that Than and I did these six hours of video together is because these sorts of misleading statements by someone with Blais's credentials can throw people. Therefore, they need to be addressed. Here once again is Than's blog post:https://www.inspiringphilosophy.com/blog/paulogiaits-time-to-stopHere is the Blais/Paulogia video that we are responding to:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6QenX4Oo78Professional articles by Lydia McGrew on dependence and independence. “Evidential Diversity and the Negation of H: A Probabilistic Account of the Value of Varied Evidence,” Ergo 3:10 (2016), available here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0003.010?view=text;rgn=main“Bayes Factors All the Way: Toward a New View of Coherence and Truth,” Theoria (2016) 82:329-350. DOI 10.1111/theo.12102. Accepted manuscript version archived here. https://lydiamcgrew.com/wp-content/uploads/BayesFactorsAlltheWayaccepted.pdf“Accounting for Dependence: Relative Consilience as a Correction Factor in Cumulative Case Arguments,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 95:3 (2017), 560-572, DOI 10.1080/00048402.2016.1219753. Accepted manuscript version archived here. https://lydiamcgrew.com/wp-content/uploads/Correctionfactoraccepted.pdf“The World, the Deceiver, and The Face in the Frost,” Quaestiones Disputatae, 7:2 (2017, volume appeared in print fall, 2018), 112-146. Draft version archived by permission here. https://lydiamcgrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Problemoftheexternalworldrevised.pdf“Confirmation, Coincidence, and Contradiction,” Synthese, 2021, Online First 3/14/21, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03102-x. Author’s Accepted Manuscript archived by permission here. https://lydiamcgrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ConfirmationCoincidenceandContradiction.pdfThumbnail "Malpractice" by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images, used under Creative CommonsThanks to  @TestifyApologetics  [https://studio.youtube.com/channel/UCadiEsTZ0hNxs5OxwGiyELQ] for helping to get these videos with Than edited and up.

Comentarios

0

Sé la primera persona en comentar

¡Regístrate ahora y únete a la comunidad de The Lydia McGrew Podcast!

Empezar

2 meses por 1 €

Después 4,99 € / mes · Cancela cuando quieras.

  • Podcasts exclusivos
  • 20 horas de audiolibros / mes
  • Podcast gratuitos
Empezar

Todos los episodios

84 episodios

Portada del episodio Independence and the case of Mr. Jones

Independence and the case of Mr. Jones

Today I'm taking a hypothetical police case in which a mother and daughter testify. Since they live together and haven't been kept separate before they testify, it seems like their testimony can't possibly be regarded as independent, right? And that lessens the force of their two testimonies for what they agree on, right? I mean, c'mon. They've got to be influencing one another.Here I illustrate the fact that independence is not a flat, simple thing. Dependence in the form of an undesigned coincidence can even be *good* for the confirmation of some H, because H unifies the testimonies better than ~H. The details can show us that the witnesses don't seem to be even unconsciously influencing each other's memories. All of that can be understood in terms of the mysterious case of Mr. Jones.If you want to get into more geeky details, here's a paper of mine on the value of varied evidence:https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0003.010?view=text;rgn=main

Ayer33 min
Portada del episodio What model of the Gospels is confirmed by undesigned coincidences?

What model of the Gospels is confirmed by undesigned coincidences?

Anybody who is trying to study the Gospels honestly is trying to get a good model of what they are like. Those who think that the Gospel authors were writing in a genre in which they were licensed to change and fabricate even details are making non-deductive arguments for their own model. (And it's disturbingly misleading to say that these claims are restricted to just details, but that's not what I'm addressing in this video, except in passing.)So when I argued in The Mirror or the Mask that finding undesigned coincidences is in tension with the view that the authors considered themselves licensed to change facts, I was making a *probabilistic* point about model comparison and explanatory inference. This seems like a good time to review that point.Interested in more? Go here to buy The Mirror or the Mask:https://www.amazon.com/Mirror-Mask-Liberating-Gospels-Literary/dp/1947929070/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mirror+or+the+mask&qid=1600272214&sr=8-1

Ayer25 min