Today's discussion is a follow-up to this recent stream with Dale Glover and David Kemball-Cook, which aired several weeks agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrO3QZ4DsXYDavid and I disagreed in the discussion about whether we should compare the resurrection to the negation of the resurrection when asking how to evaluate the explanatory power of the hypotheses. Should we instead, as David argued, compare R to the "best alternative" to R which proposes to explain the evidence in various ways under the theory that R never happened? Here I explain why it's important in historical investigations to use a partition ("this event happened" vs. "this event didn't happen") to evaluate the force of the evidence.Since the stream got a little techy, it seemed good to take some more time on these issues.Here are those images to study at your leisure:https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2025/03/bayesian-analysis-resurrection-and.html
