A Kuhnian critique of Hume on miracles

In Part I of "Of Miracles," Hume argues that belief in miracle-testimony is never justified. While Hume's argument has been widely criticized and defended along a number of different veins, including its import on scientific inquiry, this paper takes a novel approach by comparing Hume...

Πλήρης περιγραφή

Αποθηκεύτηκε σε:  
Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
Κύριος συγγραφέας: Kulmac Butler, Joshua (Συγγραφέας)
Τύπος μέσου: Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο
Γλώσσα:Αγγλικά
Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Φόρτωση...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Έκδοση: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2019]
Στο/Στη: International journal for philosophy of religion
Έτος: 2019, Τόμος: 86, Τεύχος: 1, Σελίδες: 39-59
Τυποποιημένες (ακολουθίες) λέξεων-κλειδιών:B Hume, David 1711-1776, Of miracles / Θαύμα (μοτίβο) / Πίστη (μοτίβο) / Επιστημονικότητα / Ανωμαλία (ιατρική) / Kuhn, Thomas S. 1922-1996
Σημειογραφίες IxTheo:AB Φιλοσοφία της θρησκείας, Κριτική της θρησκείας, Αθεϊσμός
NBC Δόγμα του Θεού
VA Φιλοσοφία
Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά:B Miracle
B Thomas Kuhn
B David Hume
B Miracles
B Anomaly
B Anomalies
Διαθέσιμο Online: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Περιγραφή
Σύνοψη:In Part I of "Of Miracles," Hume argues that belief in miracle-testimony is never justified. While Hume's argument has been widely criticized and defended along a number of different veins, including its import on scientific inquiry, this paper takes a novel approach by comparing Hume's argument with Thomas Kuhn's account of scientific anomalies. This paper makes two arguments: first that certain types of scientific anomalies-those that conflict with the corresponding paradigm theory-are analogous to miracles in the relevant ways. Note, importantly, that the argument applies only to the first definition of 'miracle' that Hume offers (i.e. 'miracle' as a "violation of the laws of nature.") Second, it argues that we are sometimes rationally justified in believing testimony for scientific anomalies (that conflict with the corresponding paradigm theory), because there have been several cases of scientists accepting such anomalies and-assuming certain criteria are met-we are rationally justified in believing these scientists. If both arguments are successful, then it is possible to be rationally justified in believing miracle-testimony, though the extent of justification depends on various criteria and comes in degrees. After examining a few objections, the paper concludes by contextualizing this argument in relation to Part II of Hume's essay and in relation to broader apologetic concerns. In short, it is vital to recognize that this paper's focus is Hume's first account of 'miracle,' rather than his argument against miracle-testimony more broadly, but the argument could be coupled with other arguments against Hume's broader attack on miracle-testimony.
ISSN:1572-8684
Περιλαμβάνει:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-019-09699-x