Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Question

Put quotes in boxes
Source Link
CriglCragl
CriglCragl
  • 23.8k
  • 4
  • 28
  • 76

Hume said "That 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:"

"That 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"

Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Is this functionally equivalent to saying that the only way to show that a claim is extraordinary is to have extraordinary evidence match up to it? If the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood is more miraculous, that would seem to imply that the evidence is extraordinary enough to match, if not supercede, the extraordinariness of the claim

Hume said "That 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:" Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Is this functionally equivalent to saying that the only way to show that a claim is extraordinary is to have extraordinary evidence match up to it? If the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood is more miraculous, that would seem to imply that the evidence is extraordinary enough to match, if not supercede, the extraordinariness of the claim

Hume said

"That 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"

Sagan said

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Is this functionally equivalent to saying that the only way to show that a claim is extraordinary is to have extraordinary evidence match up to it? If the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood is more miraculous, that would seem to imply that the evidence is extraordinary enough to match, if not supercede, the extraordinariness of the claim

typo
Source Link
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  • 41.3k
  • 3
  • 41
  • 92

Hume said "That 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:" Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidencevidence".

Is this functionally equivalent to saying that the only way to show that a claim is extraordinary is to have extraordinary evidence match up to it? If the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood is more miraculous, that would seem to imply that the evidence is extraordinary enough to match, if not supercede, the extraordinariness of the claim

Hume said "That 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:" Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenc

Is this functionally equivalent to saying that the only way to show that a claim is extraordinary is to have extraordinary evidence match up to it? If the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood is more miraculous, that would seem to imply that the evidence is extraordinary enough to match, if not supercede, the extraordinariness of the claim

Hume said "That 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:" Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Is this functionally equivalent to saying that the only way to show that a claim is extraordinary is to have extraordinary evidence match up to it? If the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood is more miraculous, that would seem to imply that the evidence is extraordinary enough to match, if not supercede, the extraordinariness of the claim

Source Link
user62907
user62907

Is Hume's famous quote on miracles equivalent to Sagan's extraordinary claim principle?

Hume said "That 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:" Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidenc

Is this functionally equivalent to saying that the only way to show that a claim is extraordinary is to have extraordinary evidence match up to it? If the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood is more miraculous, that would seem to imply that the evidence is extraordinary enough to match, if not supercede, the extraordinariness of the claim