Evidence Item - v0.6
Miracle priors and historical method
E-DEF-MIRACLE-PRIORS-HISTORICAL-METHOD
Visual overview: Evidence Viewer
Classification
- Evidence ID
- E-DEF-MIRACLE-PRIORS-HISTORICAL-METHOD
- Corpus/version
- v0.6
- Stage
- Not explicitly stage-mapped in current stage_flow.
- Category
- Evidence Governance
- Major category
- Methodology / Signal Core
- Sub-category
- Miracle Priors / Historical Method
- BF status
- unweighted_explanatory
- Scoring label
- Contextual / unweighted / no active Bayes factor.
Navigation
Primary Datum
Miracle priors should be explicit, challengeable, and conditioned by the live worldview context. A skeptical prior can test a miracle claim, but a hard-coded near-zero prior can become a hidden veto: the mathematical equivalent of refusing to hear the evidence. This unweighted methodology row keeps miracle scoring from smuggling in either easy belief or closed-system disbelief.
Scoring / Hypothesis Pressure
Contextual / unweighted / no active Bayes factor.
Dependency / Cap Metadata
- dependency_cluster_id
- methodological_controls
- dependency_cluster_role
- methodology
- dependency_cluster
- methodological_controls
- dependency_role
- methodology
- cap_profile
- manual_review
- evidence_function
- methodological_pressure
- directness
- methodological
Caveats / Notes
- Source note
- Source review should use Hume's Section X to define the skeptical pressure from rarity, testimony, and conflicting experience; Earman to prevent Hume from functioning as a probability-free veto; and McGrew/McGrew to represent a Bayesian cumulative-case response. This row should remain methodology/control only and should govern isolated vs conditioned miracle-prior sensitivity rather than add an ordinary negative BF against H-RESURRECTION.
- Scoring note
- No BF in this batch. Methodology/control only; not an ordinary anti-Resurrection evidence penalty.
Citations
- David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, "Of Miracles."
- John Earman, Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Oxford University Press, 2000).
- John Earman, "Bayes, Hume, Price, and Miracles."
- Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, "The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth," in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 593-662.
Recommended Citation
The Signal Evidence Dataset, "Miracle priors and historical method," Evidence ID: E-DEF-MIRACLE-PRIORS-HISTORICAL-METHOD, Version 0.6. Accessed [access date]. https://logos-signal.org/evidence/E-DEF-MIRACLE-PRIORS-HISTORICAL-METHOD/
Machine-Readable Source
This page is generated from the public evidence mirror without recalculating or changing scores.