The Miracle Audit: A Probabilistic Framework for Differentiating Anomalies from Supernatural Interventions
A probabilistic audit for extraordinary claims that separates anomaly from supernatural explanation.
Source Paper
This page is a simplified guide to the paper. The source document is linked below; the guide here keeps the main idea accessible and tied back to the site’s model.
Open on Academia.eduLow-Register Abstract
This paper asks how we should evaluate reports of miracles. It does not begin by assuming that all unusual events are fake. It asks a more careful question: what would the evidence have to show before a supernatural explanation beat natural alternatives?
The audit separates several issues that are often blurred: whether the event happened, whether it is unusual, whether it points to a specific cause, whether other explanations are available, and how strong the comparison really is.
How It Fits Credencing
This is a direct application of Bayesian thinking. Extraordinary claims need attention to priors, likelihoods, alternative explanations, and evidential rigor.
It also illustrates why assigned credence should not jump from “strange” to “therefore supernatural.” The size and direction of an update depend on comparative evidence.
How to Read It
Read this after the Bayes theorem walkthrough. Try applying the same structure to any extraordinary claim: first separate the anomaly from the proposed explanation.