Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Qty:1
  • List Price: $53.00
  • Save: $4.82 (9%)
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
Add to Cart
Used: Very Good | Details
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: A few marks in the columns. Pages are 98% free of marks.
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Add to Cart
Trade in your item
Get a $13.02
Gift Card.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles Paperback – November 23, 2000

ISBN-13: 978-0195127386 ISBN-10: 0195127382

Buy New
Price: $48.18
17 New from $34.43 11 Used from $29.81
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Paperback
"Please retry"
$48.18
$34.43 $29.81
Free%20Two-Day%20Shipping%20for%20College%20Students%20with%20Amazon%20Student


Frequently Bought Together

Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles + A Defense of Hume on Miracles (Princeton Monographs in Philosophy)
Price for both: $77.56

Buy the selected items together

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Save up to 90% on Textbooks
Rent textbooks, buy textbooks, or get up to 80% back when you sell us your books. Shop Now

Product Details

  • Paperback: 232 pages
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press (November 23, 2000)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0195127382
  • ISBN-13: 978-0195127386
  • Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.1 x 0.7 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 12.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,016,559 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Unlike so many who have gone before, Earman does not merely intend to expose Hume's fallacies. His aim is to sketch an epistemology that allows for both the possibility of miracles and a healthy skepticism toward miracle claims--twin goals that many theists also embrace. As a whole, this is a very good book."--Philosophia Christi

"[the] argument itself is very clear, very cogent, and very apposite to present debates."--Mind

About the Author

John Earman is at University of Pittsburgh.

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

4.4 out of 5 stars
5 star
6
4 star
1
3 star
2
2 star
0
1 star
0
See all 9 customer reviews
Earman also exhibits some clear and lively prose.
J. Steve Miller
After several attempts to read Hume charitably, Earman finds Hume's application of probabilistic reasoning is muddled and confused, at best.
John DePoe
I highly recommend it to students of philosophical history and the philosophy of religion.
Reader From Aurora

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

44 of 57 people found the following review helpful By John DePoe on June 5, 2006
Format: Paperback
John Earman has written a wonderful book that shows the value of using the precision of probability theory to bring clarity to a murky issue. Long have certain philosophers marvelled at David Hume's essay, "On Miracles," supposing it to be an original and creative refutation of believing in miracles. Earman shows that Hume's arguments are neither original nor sound at establishing his pessimistic outlook on miracles. Moreover, using probability calculus, Earman is able to establish clearly that Hume's argument is a failure. In fact, Earman shows that many of Hume's contemporaries were familiar with probabilistic reasoning and were able to demonstrate Hume was wrong within in his own lifetime. So, not only was Hume wrong, but his failure cannot be attributed to the lack of development of inductive reasoning in his time. Earman works hard trying to understand what exactly Hume meant by examining Hume's personal letters and the developments of Hume's essay as it was published in various editions. After several attempts to read Hume charitably, Earman finds Hume's application of probabilistic reasoning is muddled and confused, at best. Furthermore, Earman shows that if Hume was right, this would spell disaster for inductive reasoning that confirms (or disconfirms) scientific reasoning. Those who endorse Hume's argument against miracles are supporting a line of reasoning that would eqully undermine science.

Earman's book is commendable for a number of reasons. First, it is a first-rate work in philosophy that is written clearly. Earman's rigor coupled with his readable prose make for a rewarding study.
Read more ›
4 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
53 of 73 people found the following review helpful By Prof. Dr John Warwick Montgomery (London, England et Strasbourg, France) on December 18, 2001
Format: Paperback
Introductory philosophy courses in college or university invariably include Hume's argument against miracles in the philosophy of religion unit to convince students that one cannot use evidence of miracles (such as the resurrection of Christ) to argue for metaphysical truths. Of course, Hume's argument SHOULD be included in the course--but in the LOGIC section as an archetypal piece of bad reasoning. Finally, a professional philosopher--who is by no means a Christian believer--has done a thoroughgoing scholarly critique of Hume's argument, showing beyond all question that the argument is perfectly circular: Hume, with a pre-Einsteinian, 18th century mindset, assumes that "uniform experience" exists against miracles and concludes--surprise, surprise--that no evidence can ever be effectively marshalled to prove that a miracle has really occurred. This book should be read by every naive philosophical rationalist. It will open epistemological doors to a new appreciation of the potential of miracle arguments as a prime support to claims for a genuine, historical incarnation.
7 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
18 of 26 people found the following review helpful By Reader From Aurora on May 17, 2007
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
In Hume's Abject Failure - The Argument against Miracles, John Earman offers a cogent and comprehensive refutation of Hume's argument against miracles originally published as "On Miracles" in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Hume's contention is that given the "unique" nature of miracles no human testimony can suffice to render them credible - i.e. day-to-day experience necessarily trumps claims of the miraculous or novel. This argument has provoked interesting and occasionally heated discussion throughout the years. While containing some apparent truisms - such as the need for good reasons in an evidentiary construct and the gullibility of people- Hume's claims are generally viewed as being overstated. In criticising Hume, Earman is not arguing for the truth of any alleged miracles, rather he is contending that Hume's attempt to dismiss miracles a priori is unwarranted. It is interesting to consider the implications of Hume's assertion if it were true - much modern scientific theory such as quantum mechanics or Darwinism would be decimated. Some commentators have tried to minimize this logical extension by arguing that science deals with a different subject matter and as a consequence is immune from this criticism- this seems contrived and unconvincing.

Though not original in his assessment of Hume's failure, Earman's exposition of the issue is the most comprehensive and well articulated that I have encountered. He highlights two important factors that likely contributed to Hume's failure, an inadequate understanding of inductive argumentation and wishful thinking. With regard to former, Earman highlights many of Hume's shortcomings and in the process does a nice job in explaining Bayesian probability.
Read more ›
3 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
34 of 50 people found the following review helpful By Steve Baughman on June 24, 2009
Format: Paperback
Earman attributes to Hume the view that "the probabibility of a miracle is flatly zero." (p. 23.) This is a serious misreading of Hume. As any undergraduate philosophy student knows, Hume would never say that the probability of ANY matter of experience is "flatly zero." Hume's most notorious trait was his epistemic fallibilism, which arose from his skepticism about induction. Sadly, Earman is so bothered by some of Hume's strong anti-miracle language that he fails to view these passages in the context of Hume's most central claims.

Before one gets overly taken with Dr. Earman, I would suggest reading Robert Fogelin's "A Defense of Hume on Miracles", a short book that demolishes Earman's claims about Hume.
4 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Customer Images

Search

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?