Lecture from the 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
Looking forward to watching the second of her lectures in this series, although this (introductory?) lecture should have been shortened to around 20 minutes, and the same goes for W. R. Stoeger's first lecture.
Your comment hasn't aged well. This philosopher is now celebrated for for the topic she is discussing in this video. Is it possible that you stopped listening after 20 minutes? That's the very point in the talk when she begins to advance her own views.
What if beliefs are subjective probabilities, and we do believe (pr.8) that a bus from the blue bus company struck the victim, but this is outweighed by our desire (subjective utility) not to punish the innocent when the offence, and hence the punishment, is more serious? Maybe the different 'balance of probabilities' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' regimes are a response to the magnitudes of the offences, and the degrees of harsh treatment that must be inflicted in order to redress them?
I think the court decisions attributed here to "belief" rather than "credence," can in fact be explained in the probability framework. The incorrect assumption is that what the jury is maximizing is probability of punishing the guilty. A better thing to maximize is deterrent incentive on potential criminals. If a woman knows she can steal an iphone, and whenever a man is around, the man will be blamed, she is not deterred from stealing it.
So if God is no more than a "hypothesis"---. than perhaps the speaker should detail just how the universe came into being in the first place. Oh and don't forget the continuous power within each and every atom throughout the cosmos. Now, that shouldn't be too difficult should it ?
"um","um","um","um", "um","um","um","um", "um","um","um","um", take a deep breath and use a silent pause instead of the crutch word "um". An hour of that distracts from the talk .. (in case you read this). good talk.
Looking forward to watching the second of her lectures in this series, although this (introductory?) lecture should have been shortened to around 20 minutes, and the same goes for W. R. Stoeger's first lecture.
Your comment hasn't aged well. This philosopher is now celebrated for for the topic she is discussing in this video. Is it possible that you stopped listening after 20 minutes? That's the very point in the talk when she begins to advance her own views.
I think he meant that the content could have been presented adequately in less time.
What if beliefs are subjective probabilities, and we do believe (pr.8) that a bus from the blue bus company struck the victim, but this is outweighed by our desire (subjective utility) not to punish the innocent when the offence, and hence the punishment, is more serious? Maybe the different 'balance of probabilities' and 'beyond reasonable doubt' regimes are a response to the magnitudes of the offences, and the degrees of harsh treatment that must be inflicted in order to redress them?
I think the court decisions attributed here to "belief" rather than "credence," can in fact be explained in the probability framework. The incorrect assumption is that what the jury is maximizing is probability of punishing the guilty. A better thing to maximize is deterrent incentive on potential criminals. If a woman knows she can steal an iphone, and whenever a man is around, the man will be blamed, she is not deterred from stealing it.
All the genius dudes with nothing to add to this discussion that could not be found at toastmasters.
So if God is no more than a "hypothesis"---. than perhaps the speaker should detail just how the universe came into being in the first place.
Oh and don't forget the continuous power within each and every atom throughout the cosmos. Now, that shouldn't be too difficult should it ?
I have a high confidence level that she was nervous.
This talk is so horrible I ended up watching all of it in an amazement.
"um","um","um","um",
"um","um","um","um",
"um","um","um","um",
take a deep breath and use a silent pause instead of the crutch word "um". An hour of that distracts from the talk ..
(in case you read this).
good talk.
Horrible, simply horrible. Here is statistic, if you waste 60% of your allotted time setting premise you have lost every hope of winning an argument.
How is this blather a statistics? Pulling 60% out of your ass does not make it a statistic.
Stop saying "like"....