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
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-02-01
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
80 ( #24,392 of 38,095 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
26 ( #14,804 of 38,095 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.