For onlookers, the concept is essentially that the prediction of the probability of something happening is tied to past happenings.
In the boy who cried wolf, the duped villagers eventually determined that based on past behaviour it was more likely that the herder boy was lying when he cried wolf. The tragedy of course was that the boy was not believed when a wolf actually came.
The boy who cried wolf can be taken as a cautionary tale about relying too heavily on Bayesian statistics.
As we gain more knowledge on natural events, we also assign more mundane reasoning to said events.
It's complicated. New models tend to overtake older models because the new one provides better utility. But sometimes it's strictly about aesthetics. You could maintain some theory that "Yes, there is a rain god and the new data just explains why and how he does the things he does".
The question of a lesser god is categorically different than the question of the all-God.
I suggest at the very least that applying a Bayesian approach should at least avoid comparing things like rain gods to the question of the all-God premise.
A big hurdle with the approach you are suggesting is that scientific models themselves are constantly wrong and overtaken by newer models. With your Bayesian approach, it would follow that we should reject every current model on this basis too, knowing that something will likely overrule it in future.
I don't find the approach to be fruitful.
Empiricism
Empiricism on the other hand is inherently agnostic regarding the question of God. You can't put God in a test-tube, which means empiricism can't speak one way or the other.
Mundane reasoning
The thing that you may be drawn to is the concept that the type of models you are advocating for assumes that randomness exists. You could assume there is randomness in each event or that there is a deterministic chain of events that led from a random happening.
This randomness is mutually exclusive to the concept of agency.
But, there is ultimately no proof that true randomness actually exists.
It becomes a philosophical question. One that science does not address.
Reunto 0 points 6 hours ago
Hey man, I can appreciate Bayesian statistics.
For onlookers, the concept is essentially that the prediction of the probability of something happening is tied to past happenings.
In the boy who cried wolf, the duped villagers eventually determined that based on past behaviour it was more likely that the herder boy was lying when he cried wolf. The tragedy of course was that the boy was not believed when a wolf actually came.
The boy who cried wolf can be taken as a cautionary tale about relying too heavily on Bayesian statistics.
It's complicated. New models tend to overtake older models because the new one provides better utility. But sometimes it's strictly about aesthetics. You could maintain some theory that "Yes, there is a rain god and the new data just explains why and how he does the things he does".
The question of a lesser god is categorically different than the question of the all-God.
I suggest at the very least that applying a Bayesian approach should at least avoid comparing things like rain gods to the question of the all-God premise.
A big hurdle with the approach you are suggesting is that scientific models themselves are constantly wrong and overtaken by newer models. With your Bayesian approach, it would follow that we should reject every current model on this basis too, knowing that something will likely overrule it in future.
I don't find the approach to be fruitful.
Empiricism on the other hand is inherently agnostic regarding the question of God. You can't put God in a test-tube, which means empiricism can't speak one way or the other.
The thing that you may be drawn to is the concept that the type of models you are advocating for assumes that randomness exists. You could assume there is randomness in each event or that there is a deterministic chain of events that led from a random happening.
This randomness is mutually exclusive to the concept of agency.
But, there is ultimately no proof that true randomness actually exists.
It becomes a philosophical question. One that science does not address.