Assessing Papal Probabilities: A Reply to Joseph E. Blado

Perichoresis 18 (5):105-116 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Joseph Blado critiqued my probabilistic arguments against Roman papal doctrines by deploying probability arguments, particularly Bayesian arguments, in favor of the papacy. He contends that there are good C-inductive arguments for papal doctrine that, taken together, add up to a good P-inductive argument. I argue that his inductive arguments fail, and moreover that there are three good C-inductive arguments against papal doctrine in the neighborhood of his failed arguments. I conclude by critiquing his retreat to what he calls ‘skeptical papalism’ as a last ditch sort of move to defend papal doctrine.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Deductive/Inductive Distinction.George Bowles - 1994 - Informal Logic 16 (3):159-184.
Reichenbach's Theory of Probability and Induction.Arthur W. Burks - 1951 - Review of Metaphysics 4 (3):377 - 393.
The invalidation of induction: A reply to Pargetter and Bigelow.I. T. Oakley - 1998 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (3):452 – 463.
The Possibility of Inductive Moral Arguments.Mark T. Nelson - 2006 - Philosophical Papers 35 (2):231-246.
Infallibility: A. P. MARTINICH.A. P. Martinich - 1980 - Religious Studies 16 (1):15-27.
The Inductive Argument from Evil.Bruce R. Reichenbach - 1980 - American Philosophical Quarterly 17 (3):221 - 227.
The Concept of Inductive Probability.Patrick Maher - 2006 - Erkenntnis 65 (2):185-206.
Conductive Arguments: Why is This Still a Thing?Kevin Possin - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (4):563-593.


Added to PP

23 (#664,515)

6 months
9 (#290,637)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jerry Walls
Houston Baptist University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations