Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106 (1997)
|Abstract||Bayesian analyses are prominent among recent and allegedly novel interpretations of Hume’s argument against the justified belief in miracles. However, since there is no consensus on just what Hume’s argument is any Bayesian analysis will beg crucial issues of interpretation. Apart from independent philosophical arguments—arguments that would undermine the relevance of a Bayesian analysis to the question of the credibility of reports of the miraculous—no such analysis can, in principle, prove that no testimony can (or cannot) establish the credibility of a miracle. Bayesian analyses of Hume’s argument are not analyses of Hume’s argument at all—but superfluous representations of it|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Earman (1993). Bayes, Hume, and Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Chris Slupik (1995). A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'. Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
Rodney D. Holder (1998). Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):49-65.
David Owen (1987). Hume Versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities: Testimony and the Bayesian Calculation. Philosophical Quarterly 37 (147):187-202.
Ruth Weintraub (1996). The Credibility of Miracles. Philosophical Studies 82 (3):359 - 375.
Peter Harrison (1999). Prophecy, Early Modern Apologetics, and Hume's Argument Against Miracles. Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (2):241 - 256.
Donald Gillies (1991). A Bayesian Proof of a Humean Principle. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (2):255-256.
Alan Hájek (2008). Are Miracles Chimerical? In Alan Hájek (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 1. Oxford Univ Pr.
Michael Levine (1988). Belief in Miracles: Tillotson's Argument Against Transubstantiation as a Model for Hume. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 23 (3):125 - 160.
William L. Vanderburgh (2005). Of Miracles and Evidential Probability. Hume Studies 31 (1):37-61.
Bruce Langtry (1985). Miracles and Rival Systems of Religion. Sophia 24 (1):21 - 31.
Jordan Howard Sobel (1987). On the Evidence of Testimony for Miracles: A Bayesian Interpretation of David Hume's Analysis. Philosophical Quarterly 37 (147):166-186.
Philip Dawid & Donald Gillies (1989). A Bayesian Analysis of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophical Quarterly 39 (154):57-65.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads10 ( #114,362 of 722,864 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,864 )
How can I increase my downloads?