Bayesian method is just way of keeping track of evidence and weight but human judgement is still required. How much it keeps out emotions or prejudice, or bias is doubtful. Most people don't form their opinions this way, though perhaps they could benefit from it.
I had a hard time understanding this presentation. The level of complexity seems to detract from the force of the argument. Also, Kyle seems to mumble when articulating hard to catch terms like ‘epistemic’ ‘probability’ and ‘tautology’. This made it even harder to follow. I am a big fan of the New Eliakim argument, but overall you guys kinda lost me on this one.
This presentation was overly complicated and hard to follow. It presupposes specifics and rarely actually talks about the argument outside of thier algebraic references. While a thin slice of viewers would be made up with this, there is the greater part of the audience that are purposely excluded because of the heavy reliance on jargon
Then problem with these types of nonsense statistics is that true probabilities can only be based on historical data. But whether the argument is true is purely based upon *interpretation not historical data.* So the basis for any statistical argument is based on a logical fallacy.
👀
I press LIKE before watching the video.
Bayesian method is just way of keeping track of evidence and weight but human judgement is still required. How much it keeps out emotions or prejudice, or bias is doubtful. Most people don't form their opinions this way, though perhaps they could benefit from it.
That’s the point of it. It helps you make an impartial/correct judgment.
The Pope Guy! Hope all is well, brother.
this is fantastic great work gentlemen
Swan Sonar makes one of the most convincing arguments I've ever heard on this typology. Thank you, Mr. Sonar!
Are you going to share the spreadsheet? I would like to compute it using phyton.
Very smart bunch of gentleman, but bringing Bayesian probability into the argument was probably a mistake.
I had a hard time understanding this presentation. The level of complexity seems to detract from the force of the argument. Also, Kyle seems to mumble when articulating hard to catch terms like ‘epistemic’ ‘probability’ and ‘tautology’. This made it even harder to follow. I am a big fan of the New Eliakim argument, but overall you guys kinda lost me on this one.
Great videos guys! Love to see more papacy apologetics
This presentation was overly complicated and hard to follow. It presupposes specifics and rarely actually talks about the argument outside of thier algebraic references. While a thin slice of viewers would be made up with this, there is the greater part of the audience that are purposely excluded because of the heavy reliance on jargon
Vecchio is solid and has a great beard🦾
Then problem with these types of nonsense statistics is that true probabilities can only be based on historical data.
But whether the argument is true is purely based upon *interpretation not historical data.*
So the basis for any statistical argument is based on a logical fallacy.
🎉🎉