History and Theory 44 (3):373–390 (2005)
|Abstract||The topic and methods of David Hume’s "Of Miracles" resemble his historiographical more than his philosophical works. Unfortunately, Hume and his critics and apologists have shared the prescientific, indeed ahistorical, limitations of Hume’s original historical investigations. I demonstrate the advantages of the critical methodological approach to testimonies, developed initially by German biblical critics in the late eighteenth century, to a priori discussions of miracles. Any future discussion of miracles and Hume must use the critical method to improve the quality and relevance of the debate. (edited)|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Owen (1987). Hume Versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities: Testimony and the Bayesian Calculation. Philosophical Quarterly 37 (147):187-202.
Michael Almeida (2007). Martin on Miracles. Philo 10 (1):27-34.
Alan Hájek (1995). In Defense of Hume's Balancing of Probabilities in the Miracles Argument. Southwest Philosophy Review 11 (1):111-118.
Paul Weirich (1983). Conditional Probabilities and Probabilities Given Knowledge of a Condition. Philosophy of Science 50 (1):82-95.
Chris Slupik (1995). A New Interpretation of Hume's 'Of Miracles'. Religious Studies 31 (4):517 - 536.
George N. Schlesinger (1987). Miracles and Probabilities. Noûs 21 (2):219-232.
Morgan Luck (2005). Against the Possibility of Historical Evidence for Miracles. Sophia 44 (1):7 - 23.
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.
Stefan Schubert (2011). Coherence and Reliability: The Case of Overlapping Testimonies. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 74 (2):263-275.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #65,329 of 722,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?