[I have just noticed two anomalies in the preliminary pages for this section of the course. (a) They are headed "Testimony and the Rationality of Beliefs," but should have been headed "Believing what Someone Tells You, Some Preliminaries." (b) On p. 3, there is a reference to p. 75 of Hume, but it should be to p. 170.

Please note that I have posted a couple of pages of additional notes on Descartes, Locke, and Hume in the web page under "additional notes." These notes will make it possible to complete the material from Monday quickly before going on to Hume's argument about miracles.]

Hume's Argument in Section X, Part I

Conclusion: No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact, which it endeavours to establish (p. 174).

(Take any possible event, E, and any testimony, T.)

1. If E is a miracle, then the evidence that E did not occur is stronger than the evidence that T is true, unless the falsehood of T is itself a miracle.

2. If the evidence that E did not occur is stronger than the evidence that T is true, then T is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of E.

Therefore,

3. If E is a miracle, then T is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of E unless the falsehood of T is itself a miracle.

Questions:

1. What does Hume mean by "evidence"?

2. Hume assumes that T is evidence that E occurred, but is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of E if there is stronger evidence that E did not occur. In what way does he assume one can compare the evidence for E provided by T, with the evidence against E.