Historic Doubts: does the argument against miracles, applied consistently, destroy ordinary historical knowledge?

Richard Whately, answered from the texts and cited to the page.

The position in brief

Apply Mr Hume's canons for weighing testimony strictly to the reported career of Napoleon Buonaparte and the evidence must be rejected, since the events reported are more extraordinary than the falsehood of the witnesses. The conclusion is absurd; therefore something in the canons is wrong.1234

Sources

  1. "... The Veracity of Quintus Curtius is as suspicious when he describes the supernatural courage of Alexander, by which he was hurried on singly to attack multitudes, as when he describes his supernatural force and activity, by which he was able to resist them. So readily and universally do we acknowledge a uniformity in human motives and actions, as well as in the operations of body."--Eighth Essay, p.
    Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte
  2. The celebrated Hume has pointed out, also, the readiness with which men believe, on very slight evidence, any story that pleases their imagination by its admirable and marvellous character.
    Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte
  3. We would not give credit to a man who would affirm that he saw a hundred dice thrown in the air, and that they all fell on the same faces."--Edin. Review, Sept. 1814, p. 327. Let it be observed, that the instance here given is miraculous in no other sense but that of being highly improbable.
    Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte
  4. Econ. Lect. HI. 334 APPENDIX I. Some have never been struck with this consequence of Hume's principles; and some have even failed to per¬ ceive it when pointed out: but if the reader thinks it worth his while to consult the author, he will see that his principles, according to his own account of them, are such as I have stated.
    Elements of Logic

Where the argument is made

  • Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte (1819) in full
  • Elements of Rhetoric I.3 on presumption in matters of testimony

How the argument was received

Published anonymously as a jest and meant entirely seriously.