Evidence Evaluation

[David Sklansky]

Many religious people believe that their specific religious beliefs are greater than 50% to be true (as opposed to other sects of their religion, other known religions, other conceivable but not espoused religions, and the belief in no religion). Fair enough. But some take it further. They go on to believe that the evidence and arguments for their particular sect are so strong that an objective and expert "bookie" (or you could call him an expert probalistic evidence evaluator) would make their sect better than even money on his preseason line. All the other contenders, they believe, would be offered at high odds.

Now even though common sense might say that someone who actually thinks that their sects beliefs should obviously be odds on favorite in the minds of expert bookies is silly, there is some basis for it. Especially if the sect in question is some of the Protestant denominations. Becuase they believe both that God is fair and that God saves only those who believe what they do. This logically forces them to believe that objective evidence evaluation must lead you to their sect. See why?

But that is not the subject of this post. Rather it is the subject of evidence evaluation. Setting lines, if you will.
Because once someone defends their beliefs soley on the basis of evidence and arguments, it is no longer a religious debate. At this point the winner is simply the better bookie. For religious people to win they must show why that means them.

If two people are both setting lines on some event there are four attributes I can see that could make A's line better than B's

1. He is smarter-more gifted at setting lines in general.

2. He is more knowledgeble-has studied more about the subject of setting lines in general.

3. He is more knowledgeable about the specific subject or event that the linemaking is addressing.

4. He is less biased about the subject.

Regardless of the subject being debated, if one linemaker is superior to another in three out of four of these things it almost always means that his line will be closer to the truth. If someone is superior in all four aspects, his line MUST be better. (That is not saying that he must be right. It just means that if I am a smarter and more knowledgeble linemaker than you, know at least as much about the subject, and am equally unbiased, there is no logical reason why an observer should think your line is the correct one rather than mine.)

Although I am not one of them, I believe there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there who equal or surpass in all four categories, the posters who claim that their sect is obviously, logically, right. Millions who surpass them in three. And I believe that the vast majority of those expert bookies would disagree with them. Which BY ITSELF proves them wrong (not about the truth of their beliefs but about the obviousness of those truths).

[kbfc]

This was basically the point of my post here a month ago or so.

[RJT]

I suggest it doesn’t work that way (completely).

You seem to be saying:

A. If x religion is true then God. Which of course is correct. What is the probability of x being true, though, is what you want to know.

But, I say one has to start with (or at least “determine”):

B.1) If God then which of n Religion (no Religion being true included in n) is true 2) If no God then no to any Religion being true.

One has to “determine” the odds of B1) to B2) and combine this answer to A. before one can “determine” the final probability of A., even if we have the odds of the evidence.

That without the odds of B (B1:B2) then we can’t get a definitive answer to A.

Am I wrong?

Not sure that I worded it totally correct, but I hope you get the gist.

[David Sklansky]

"but I hope you get the gist."

I sure don't

[RJT]

I'll try to re-phrase. I thought by my speaking Sklansky you would understand (lol). I'll try English, brb.

[RJT]

How can one “determine” the “true” probability of what you are looking for without knowing the probability of : God exists to God does not exist?

Doesn’t the odds of God:No God have to be combined with the odds of the evidence?

[RJT]

I’ll try it with numbers although my math is a little rusty.

A)God to no God say percentage is 10 % God to 90% no God.

B) Odds of evidence is : 5% evidence is correct to 95% evidence is wrong.

Don’t we have to combine A and B to get the final odds?

[David Sklansky]

"No God" is simply one of the types of bets the bookie puts a line on. What ever remains is disributed proportionally

Sklansky, I agree with you on your premise. I was wondering if you had any types of people in mind(or even names if they are famous) who you think fall into this category of expert bookmaker. I think you have a powerful argument that could be used in debates if these people's views could be pointed to and if they were respected by people on all the different sides of this debate. That seems like the difficult part of this.

[Georgia Avenue]

I agree with this [ QUOTE ]
It just means that if I am a smarter and more knowledgeable linemaker than you, know at least as much about the subject, and am equally unbiased, there is no logical reason why an observer should think your line is the correct one rather than mine.

[/ QUOTE ]
in theory, but how to you quantify #4?

[ QUOTE ]
4. He is less biased about the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the thing that people argue about the most, with the least headway: Who is being clearheaded and who is fooling himself. Do you mean emotionally involved? How can you determine if you are in fact UNinvolved emotionally when your opponent could argue that your emotions are clouding your judgment on your own involvement? This isn't Rams v Steelers and you're from Montana...when it comes to Truth of Religious Faith we're all on the home team.

Could you argue that you can in fact determine someone's "bias" based on the background? or their tone of voice? or their ability to handle ambiguity? Who is smarter is easy, but biases seems to me almost impossible to compare.