Posted: Dec 19, 2011 10:44 am
jlowder wrote:For an example of a Bayesian argument where both the background evidence and specific evidence to be explained are explicitly stated, please see this page:
http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/11/argument-from-scale-as-revisited-part-2.html
That page gives an example of a Bayesian formulation of Nicholas Everitt's "argument from scale" for atheism. I conclude the argument itself fails, but, again, that page demonstrates how prior probabilities can be based on evidence.
I forgot to also mention this page:
http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2011/11/argument-from-scale-revisited-part-4.html
On that page, I provide a different Bayesian version of the argument from scale. Again, I explicitly state the propositions which make up B (background information), E (evidence to be explained), and H (rival explanatory hypotheses). I also explicitly provide the logical form of my Bayesian argument. In short, this is a fully worked example.
Aside: I conclude that version does succeed in showing that the scale of the universe is slightly more probable on naturalism than on theism, but the ratio is so small it's hardly worth mentioning. (In my opinion, theists shouldn't feel threatened by this argument or its very modest conclusion.)