Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Hume's argument against miracles based on testimony fails because it relies on an ambiguity between 'all testimony' and 'some testimony'

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The argument against miracles treats 'all testimony' as if it were uniform in reliability
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A parody syllogism exposes the same fallacy: 'Some books are mere trash; Hume's Works are [some] books; therefore [Hume's Works are mere trash]'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inferring from 'some X has property P' to a specific instance of X having property P is a formal fallacy
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's maxim that testimony for miracles is always outweighed by uniform experience treats all miracle testimony as epistemically equivalent to weak testimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Earman's formal reconstruction shows Hume's argument conflates base rates of all testimony with the conditional reliability of specific corroborated testimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bayesian analysis by Earman and Sobel demonstrates that sufficiently independent, convergent testimony can raise posterior probability regardless of prior improbability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.C.D. Broad noted that Hume's argument proves too much: it would rule out accepting any extraordinary historical event attested by reliable witnesses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The testimony of multiple independent witnesses to a singular event constitutes a distinct epistemic category from generic unreliable testimony, requiring differential treatment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.