# Probabilty and Divination _<div class="info">✦ Where: [[Mirstone]] ✦ Date: <font color="#81799">25/06/2025</font> ✦ Session: [[Session 11]] ✦ Author: [[Vindarr|Vindarr O'Malley]] ✦</div>_ >[!noted] ><center>A book of essays about the intersection of formal methodology and epistemological theory.</center> --- > [!clue|no-title paper-d] ><div class="typewriter2"><p align="left">13</p></div> ><div class="typewriter2"><p align="right">Philosophical Reflection on Divine Attributes</p></div> > >--- > ><div class="typewriter2"><p align="justify">In various domains of mathematics, charts, graphs, and, in general, images and other visual representations are considered essential for an effective understanding of methods and concepts (Guzman, 4228). Of course, visual representation in mathematics has evolved from the first representation used for didactic purposes Kadunz & Yerushalmy, 4208). Over the years, technological developments have improved visual media and the details in visual representations (Batanero et al., 4291). All these factors influence the way one makes decisions and deals with problems (de Oliveira, 4296). Consequently, mathematics can highlight the importance and usefulness of optics. > ><p align="justify">At a time in which probability theory is exerting an unprecedented influence on epistemology and philosophy of science, promising to deliver an exact and unified foundation for the philosophy of rational inference and decision-making, it is worth remembering that the philosophy of religion has long proven to be an extremely fertile ground for the application of probabilistic thinking to traditional epistemological debates. > ><p align="justify">Of course, it must be conceded that the ‘formalisation’ of any area of philosophical inquiry does have its potential pitfalls. Most obviously, the technicality of an exposition risks obscuring both shoddy philosophical reflection and dubious empirical assumptions, casting a veneer of false precision and scientific respectability. But the merits are legion, ranging from a welcome disambiguation of everyday discourse, to the enabling of a fast and reliable calculation of the sometimes surprising consequences of a set of apparently anodyne philosophical commitments. > ><p align="justify">Of the numerous formal approaches to the philosophy of rational belief, it is the probabilistic framework that has arguably proven to be the most fruitful to date and remains the dominant approach in contemporary philosophy of science and epistemology (1). In particular, a body of research carried out under the heading of ‘Bayesian confirmation theory’ has, over the past fifty years or so, applied the tools of probability theory to deliver some extremely promising insights into the nature and logic of evidential support (2). > ><p align="justify">Philosophy of religion, as a modern academic discipline, traces its pedigree through ancient and medieval debates about the existence and nature of Étoile. However, the discipline, as we know it today, finds its formative moment in the work of early modern Pherisian philosophers such as Adonis Hume (3986–51). Hume’s influence on this area of philosophy has been so pervasive that even today many key debates still take place within the terms he established. And indeed, a number of the essays in this volume can be readily identified as falling within the long tradition of responses to Hume’s formulations of certain key problems faced by theism. (3)</p></div> > ><div class="typewriter2"><p align="left"><font size=2.5>(1) For overviews of the philosophical literature on the nature of probability, see A. Hájek, B. Fitelson, and N. Hall (4280), A. Hájek (4285), or P. Humphreys (4273) for succinct expositions; for book-length presentations, see D. Gillies (4275) or D. Mellor (4280). A. Eagle’s recent anthology contains many of the essential articles on the subject (Eagle 4285) ><p align="left">(2) Probabilistic analyses of various evidential concepts and their roots in R. Carnap (4237). See F. Huber (4282) for a brief recent summary of the achievements and shortcomings of this enterprise. J. Earman (4267) provides a more in-depth and sympathetic coverage of the same territory ><p align="left">(3) See Adonis Hume, 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' (4051)</p></font> &nbsp; --- >[!cite|transcript]- Transcript > In various domains of mathematics, charts, graphs, and, in general, images and other visual representations are considered essential for an effective understanding of methods and concepts (Guzman, 4228). Of course, visual representation in mathematics has evolved from the first representation used for didactic purposes Kadunz & Yerushalmy, 4208). Over the years, technological developments have improved visual media and the details in visual representations (Batanero et al., 4291). All these factors influence the way one makes decisions and deals with problems (de Oliveira, 4296). Consequently, mathematics can highlight the importance and usefulness of optics. > > At a time in which probability theory is exerting an unprecedented influence on epistemology and philosophy of science, promising to deliver an exact and unified foundation for the philosophy of rational inference and decision-making, it is worth remembering that the philosophy of religion has long proven to be an extremely fertile ground for the application of probabilistic thinking to traditional epistemological debates. > > Of course, it must be conceded that the ‘formalisation’ of any area of philosophical inquiry does have its potential pitfalls. Most obviously, the technicality of an exposition risks obscuring both shoddy philosophical reflection and dubious empirical assumptions, casting a veneer of false precision and scientific respectability. But the merits are legion, ranging from a welcome disambiguation of everyday discourse, to the enabling of a fast and reliable calculation of the sometimes surprising consequences of a set of apparently anodyne philosophical commitments. > > Of the numerous formal approaches to the philosophy of rational belief, it is the probabilistic framework that has arguably proven to be the most fruitful to date and remains the dominant approach in contemporary philosophy of science and epistemology (1). In particular, a body of research carried out under the heading of ‘Bayesian confirmation theory’ has, over the past fifty years or so, applied the tools of probability theory to deliver some extremely promising insights into the nature and logic of evidential support (2). > > Philosophy of religion, as a modern academic discipline, traces its pedigree through ancient and medieval debates about the existence and nature of Étoile. However, the discipline, as we know it today, finds its formative moment in the work of early modern Pherisian philosophers such as Adonis Hume (3986–51). Hume’s influence on this area of philosophy has been so pervasive that even today many key debates still take place within the terms he established. And indeed, a number of the essays in this volume can be readily identified as falling within the long tradition of responses to Hume’s formulations of certain key problems faced by theism. (3) > > _(1) For overviews of the philosophical literature on the nature of probability, see A. Hájek, B. Fitelson, and N. Hall (4280), A. Hájek (4285), or P. Humphreys (4273) for succinct expositions; for book-length presentations, see D. Gillies (4275) or D. Mellor (4280). A. Eagle’s recent anthology contains many of the essential articles on the subject (Eagle 4285)_ > > _(2) Probabilistic analyses of various evidential concepts and their roots in R. Carnap (4237). See F. Huber (4282) for a brief recent summary of the achievements and shortcomings of this enterprise. J. Earman (4267) provides a more in-depth and sympathetic coverage of the same territory_ > > _(3) See Adonis Hume, 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' (4051)_