Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
It's strange, but it's true: Evidence that is *improbable* even given the hypothesis that it supports can provide as strong an argument as you could want in favor of that hypothesis. At the same time, such evidence, if we don't happen to have it, is resistant to being used in an argument from silence. And historical evidence fits this pattern very well.
This sounds a warning: Don't be quick to model "strong evidence" for a hypothesis as evidence that is highly expected given that hypothesis. That may be inaccurate and may also unnecessarily open up the possibility of an argument from silence, if such evidence should not be found.
Put on your geek hats and enjoy the probability theory!
All of this applies to, among other things, the argument for Jesus' resurrection.
Here is a free copy of Tim's argument from silence paper:
timothymcgrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/The-Argument-from-Silence-Acta-Analytica-Tim-2013.pdf
It's strange, but it's true: Evidence that is *improbable* even given the hypothesis that it supports can provide as strong an argument as you could want in favor of that hypothesis. At the same time, such evidence, if we don't happen to have it, is resistant to being used in an argument from silence. And historical evidence fits this pattern very well.
This sounds a warning: Don't be quick to model "strong evidence" for a hypothesis as evidence that is highly expected given that hypothesis. That may be inaccurate and may also unnecessarily open up the possibility of an argument from silence, if such evidence should not be found.
Put on your geek hats and enjoy the probability theory!
All of this applies to, among other things, the argument for Jesus' resurrection.
Here is a free copy of Tim's argument from silence paper:
timothymcgrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/The-Argument-from-Silence-Acta-Analytica-Tim-2013.pdf
