I recommend the influential work on Bayes done by Tim and Lydia McGrew.
Past Less Wrong discussion did not paint a favorable picture of their ‘Bayesian apologetics’: arbitrarily restricted sets of hypotheses, abuse of dubious infinite-strength independence assumptions, etc.
r_claypool provided some good links in that thread that addressed those issues. Additionally Lydia and Tim McGrew have penned a number of posts and papers dealing with the issues you raise.
I actually think that the topic could prove fruitful at a gathering in Salt Lake. Apply Bayesian principles and also discuss topics such as “belief in belief” and “fake explanations” prior to engaging the topic of Bayesian Mormon Apologetics.
Past Less Wrong discussion did not paint a favorable picture of their ‘Bayesian apologetics’: arbitrarily restricted sets of hypotheses, abuse of dubious infinite-strength independence assumptions, etc.
r_claypool provided some good links in that thread that addressed those issues. Additionally Lydia and Tim McGrew have penned a number of posts and papers dealing with the issues you raise.
I actually think that the topic could prove fruitful at a gathering in Salt Lake. Apply Bayesian principles and also discuss topics such as “belief in belief” and “fake explanations” prior to engaging the topic of Bayesian Mormon Apologetics.