A modest proposal [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):487–494 (2004)
What thesis is Hume trying to establish in his essay “On Miracles” (Section 10 of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) and does he succeed? John Earman’s answer to the latter question is clearly conveyed by the title of his new book. Earman uses a Bayesian representation of the problem to make his case. For Earman, this mode of analysis is both perspicuous and nonanachronistic, in that probability reasoning was central to the 18th century debate about miracles in particular and testimony in general. Indeed, one of Hume’s most interesting antagonists, Richard Price, was the person to whom Thomas Bayes entrusted his now-famous essay for posthumous publication. For Earman, Price is the proper Bayesian, while Hume’s essay provides only “rhetoric and schein geld” (p. 73). Earman’s tone is consistently prosecutorial and sometimes snide; he says that his animus is not so much against Hume himself as against those who smugly invoke Hume’s essay as definitively settling the <span class='Hi'>matter</span>. This tone should not deter potential readers who are convinced that Hume’s essay contains something of value. Earman’s book is interesting and provocative in multiple ways—it places Hume’s essay in its historical setting, it offers an insightful close reading of the text, and it shows how the resources of Bayesianism can be powerfully put to work. Besides Earman’s own essay (94 pages long), the volume also contains Hume’s essay and relevant work by others, including Locke, Spinoza, Samuel Clarke, Price, Laplace, and Babbage. The book would be an excellent choice for an advanced undergraduate or graduate seminar.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
John Earman (1992). Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Mit Press.
Robert J. Fogelin (2003). A Defense of Hume on Miracles. Princeton Univ Pr.
Nelson Goodman (1954). Fact, Fiction & Forecast. [London]University of London.
David Owen (1987). Hume Versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities: Testimony and the Bayesian Calculation. Philosophical Quarterly 37 (147):187-202.
Hans Reichenbach (1938). Experience and Prediction. University of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Aviezer Tucker (2005). Miracles, Historical Testimonies, and Probabilities. History and Theory 44 (3):373–390.
Similar books and articles
Christopher Williams (2011). Aesthetics and Morals in the Philosophy of David Hume. Hume Studies 36 (1):109-113.
Michael Levine (1997). Bayesian Analyses of Hume's Argument Concerning Miracles. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):101-106.
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.
Theodore Gracyk (2011). Delicacy in Hume's Theory of Taste. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 9 (1):1-16.
John Earman (1993). Bayes, Hume, and Miracles. Faith and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
Scott Black (2011). Thinking in Time in Hume's Essays. Hume Studies 36 (1):3-23.
Richard Otte (2004). Review of Fogelin, A Defense of Hume on Miracles. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 30 (1):165-68.
John Earman (2000). Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #43,058 of 1,089,047 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,722 of 1,089,047 )
How can I increase my downloads?