Per posterius: Hume and Peirce on miracles and the boundaries of the scienti c game

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
this article provides a response to David Hume’s argument against the plausibility of miracles as found in Section 10 of his An enquiry concerning human understanding by means of Charles Sanders Peirce’s method of retroduction, hypothetic inference, and abduction, as it is explicated and applied in his article entitled A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God, rather than fo‐ cusing primarily on Peirce’s explicit reaction to Hume in regard to miracles, as found in Hume on miracles. the main focus will be on Peirce’s neglected argument rather than his explicit con ontation with Hume on the issue of miracles, because his criticisms of Hume demands a methodological approach appropriate for scienti cally analysing surprising phenomena or outliers, of which miracles or the reality of god would be but two examples amongst many. this article, then, consists of an attempt to construct this method as one that draws inferences neither a priori nor a posteriori, but per posterius, because such a method is capable of rigorously questioning rogue or surprising phenomena, e.g. miracles.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-02-01
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
195 ( #31,501 of 2,454,397 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #47,779 of 2,454,397 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.