{"id":861,"date":"2026-09-26T18:55:08","date_gmt":"2026-09-26T18:55:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/?page_id=861"},"modified":"2026-09-26T21:41:53","modified_gmt":"2026-09-26T21:41:53","slug":"humes-perspective-on-how-to-react-to-extraordinary-claims","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/humes-perspective-on-how-to-react-to-extraordinary-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Hume’s Perspective on How to React to Extraordinary Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Donald Gorassini, howinfluenceworks.com<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many blogs on this site examine methods senders apply to sway others. By contrast, this article considers a tactic available to those receiving influence. It addresses how a person might react when someone offers an extraordinary event as proof for a belief or action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I draw on David Hume<\/a> (1711\u20131776) to develop a method for handling influence tactics that rely on extraordinary claims. When an extraordinary event is offered as support for a belief or action, neither automatic acceptance nor automatic rejection is appropriate. The recipient should assess the evidence, compare the claim with established experience, weigh alternative explanations, and align belief with the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miracle Accounts as Extraordinary Claims<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In ordinary usage, a miracle can mean either an extraordinarily unusual event or an event attributed to divine intervention (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Hume defines a miracle<\/a> as a violation of a law of nature, and specifically associates it with divine volition or an invisible agent. I will use Hume’s definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus a miracle claim is any suggestion that a nonphysical entity caused a physical event.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Examples<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some examples of purported miracles:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The miracle on ice.<\/strong> The Miracle on Ice refers to the 1980 Winter Olympics event where the underdog U.S. hockey team defeated the highly favored Soviet Union team, renowned as one of the best in history. While the victory is considered an extraordinary achievement, it does not qualify as a true miracle due to the lack of a supernatural cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The stigmata of Saint Padre Pio. Padre Pio<\/strong> was an Italian Franciscan monk known for stigmata\u2014wounds on his hands and side that resemble those of Christ. Such marks are frequently described as products of divine intervention. If that claim held, the stigmata would qualify as a miracle. Yet the wounds displayed by the monk, even if verified, would not automatically establish a miracle. The phenomenon and its interpretation remain separate questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UAP.<\/strong> The phrase Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) denotes \u201csightings and objects that cannot be immediately identified or explained\u201d (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Observers have long reported unidentified flying objects and unusual darting lights in the sky. If a nonphysical intelligence were proposed as the cause, these occurrences would be miracles; if they were seen as part of the physical universe yet simply unexplained, they would not qualify as miracles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Divine providence.<\/strong> Many people believe in divine providence, God\u2019s day-to-day control of earthly affairs. This belief encourages prayers for guidance, courage, relief, or healing, as it implies that the spiritual world actively participates in earthly human events. Any instance of divine providence would be a miracle. Again, we see that the occurrence of a prayed-for event does not necessarily indicate a miracle. We will talk further below about the important distinction between an event and its attributed cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In each instance, the word miracle refers to an event. Only a portion of these alleged miracles would qualify as genuine if they occurred. Only suggestions of a supernatural cause\u2014such as God in Padre Pio\u2019s case\u2014would count as miracle claims.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miracle claims can affect the recipient. When used to persuade, the messages serve key roles by engaging the audience and possibly prompting belief and behavior shifts aligned with those suggestions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why are we susceptible to such claims?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Why would we believe in an extraordinary claim. It could be due to a mistake. Hume, however, makes the case for motivated believing. Hume’s point is not merely that people make logical errors; he argues that wonder, religious passion, vanity, and the pleasure of transmitting extraordinary stories can themselves increase our susceptibility to belief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consistent with the work Hume, there are powerful reasons, other than truth-seeking, why someone would accept a miracle claim. The cause could be a lack of evaluation, incentives to believe (besides truth), or both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without an assessment, the claim might serve as the only explanation and be accepted by default\u2014until a stronger account takes its place. This absence of assessment may stem from a lack of ability or interest in the effort, or from a deliberate avoidance driven by fear of what could be discovered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belief in a supposed miracle can also arise from expected personal gains: the excitement of dramatic events, relief from routine, approval from a valued group, moral superiority over a devalued group, or self-worth from being a truth-teller or loyal teammate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three Possible Responses: Accept, Reject, Evaluate<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

How could we approach claims of the miraculous? There are three possible ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Option 1 is to accept without much thinking. Children commonly accept claims such as the existence of Santa Claus without evaluating the evidence; later reflection and increased critical capacity prompt rejection those beliefs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Option 2 is to reject without much thinking. You might tend to dismiss out of hand any assertion of a source you dislike. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Option 3 is don\u2019t accept, don\u2019t reject, do evaluate. Eventually, children realize that Santa Claus, elves, and flying reindeer do not exist. Second thought tells them that their original beliefs were implausible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further below, I will go into the formal thought process recommended by Hume for carrying out Option 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hume\u2019s Principle: Proportion Belief to Evidence<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Hume\u2019s approach offers grounds for avoiding Options 1 and 2. Accepting or dismissing extraordinary claims with little evaluation can carry serious drawbacks. For example, low-effort belief in claims such as miracle cures may lead to financial loss and the neglect of needed medical care, whereas premature rejection of an unusual scientific claim might allow a real discovery to slip away. The consequences of such claims may remain hidden until it is too late to reduce the harm they produce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, it is advisable to evaluate miracle claims as they arise, following Hume’s guidance, to avoid premature decisions that could lead to negative outcomes. The strategy should be to examine the evidence supporting the alleged miracle and compare it with the evidence supplied by established experience and alternative explanations, then proportion belief to the balance of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Separate Event from Explanation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Events comprise the data on which an explanation is inferred. Events derive from sensory experiences and are difficult to discount if verified under objective, repeated conditions, for example seeing the sun rise in the east every day. Explanations are inferences meant to explain events and make predictions about future events. Explanations are more fallible than events. They will be modified or rejected if they cannot explain and predict events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This separation of event and explanation is relevant to miracle claims. Even when unusual data are marshaled, the explanation given is not necessarily esoteric or supernatural. We find that objects on earth when released from a height fall to the ground. We have no problem referring to the physical force of gravity as the explanation, and would not think of attributing the observations to something supernatural.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Method of Analysis<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

What would be expected of someone who wishes to evaluate a miracle claim? According to Hume, rigorous assessment will often lead to rejection when a claim conflicts sharply with well-established experience. But the method is not a blanket rejection of unusual claims; sufficiently strong evidence can require us to revise our understanding. Here are the key elements of such testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An evaluative mindset as the overriding strategy (hence Option 3):<\/strong> Hume advises that a miracle claim should not be accepted as true reflexively, but the listener should remain open-minded and carefully assess the available evidence. Then, make a determination based on that evidence. If someone were to argue that your cold went away due to prayer, this would neither be accepted nor rejected out of hand. Evaluate it. Thus, the following should occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making the effort:<\/strong> The evaluation of an extraordinary claim is an effortful mental process. Hearing news of an unusual coincidence or even an apparent miracle is only the first step. This would be followed by the assessment itself. Conversely, failing to make the effort would ensure that one’s reflexive response remains untethered to actual validity or lack thereof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accurately depict relevant events:<\/strong> Essentially, the incidents defining the phenomenon must have taken place. You experienced a cold. A prayer was offered. The cold went away following the prayer. Each would need to happen for the miracle account to stay plausible. Yet noting these three events does not confirm supernatural causality. The cold\u2019s disappearance after the prayer is an observation; the claim of a supernatural agent\u2019s role is an interpretation. This also shows that an observation may be remarkable on its own, even without being a miracle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assessing source-supplied data and interpretations:<\/strong> The evaluation of a source’s testimony regarding extraordinary claims is crucial for determining how much weight to give the putative facts or the explanation. Key questions to consider include whether the person directly observed the event, the time elapsed before reporting, the possibility of mistakes, potential personal gain, agreement among independent observers, the reliability of the observation conditions, the reporter’s history of accuracy, and whether the account is becoming increasingly extraordinary as it is relayed. Each of these factors influences the credibility accorded their testimony and explanations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weigh the two pertinent sources of information:<\/strong> From this point, according to Hume, a comparison of two sources of evidence should be carried out, one that would support a well-established explanation and one that would favor the extraordinary process being claimed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Look for explanations consistent with well-established regularities of experience: commonly observed sequences of events culminating in the occurrence of interest. For example, the passing of time and a cold going away is a known regularity. This can be supplemented with allied known regularities, such as the finding in contemporary science of an increase in the body’s production of antibodies followed by the disappearance of the cold symptoms. These data would support an explanation that the body’s immune system fought off the cold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Search for any regularities that would support the newly proposed explanation. Inspired by Hume and using modern scientific methodology, let’s say you discover that a particular incantation secretly offered by any stranger with no agenda and aimed at the cold sufferer is always followed by a more rapid disappearance of cold symptoms than can be accounted for otherwise. The effect is demonstrated many times, over many diverse populations, under double blind conditions. If this happened, the prayer explanation would gain in credibility. In accord with the above suggestion about separating events from explanations, we would not necessarily attribute the effects of prayer to supernatural action. We would be forced, however, to come up with a satisfactory explanation of the new, very interesting observations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on a comparison of the two sources of information, weight the explanations according to the evidence. If the evaluation effort finds that events are instances of known, and not novel, regularities, then there is no miracle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If, however, the effort finds that events are instances of repeatedly demonstrated novel regularities and not any known regularities, a supernatural explanation cannot be accepted solely on the basis that the phenomenon is currently unexplained. Paradoxically, if an alleged miracle were repeatedly demonstrated under reliable conditions, it would eventually cease to be a miracle in Hume’s technical sense. It would become a newly discovered regularity of nature. The discovery of a previously unknown regularity would therefore establish something genuinely new without, by itself, establishing a supernatural cause. An unexplained phenomenon is not necessarily an inexplicable phenomenon. Finding natural mechanisms could take an extended time, just as we have not yet discovered fully why cancer occurs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As is evident from the above described method, the Hume-inspired test is stringent, but does allow for the support, rejection, or modification of existing explanations, and for the creation of new ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Applications<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Here I apply Hume’s analysis to the above noted miracle claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Miracle on Ice<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The “Miracle on Ice” denotes the surprising triumph of college athletes over the formidable Soviet hockey team. That this remarkable event occurred is readily confirmed, as it was broadcast at the time and recorded for later viewing. It would not be considered supernatural; rather, it reflects parts played by team spirit, preparation, growing parity in hockey, the volatility of a single-game format, and coaching choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Stigmata of Padre Pio<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Were Padre Pio\u2019s apparent wounds miraculous? The strong claim that the stigmata originated from God could not be confirmed. The evidence did not show divine causality as a stronger explanation than other possibilities. For these reasons, a miracle could not be regarded as proven. Could supernatural causality ever be shown? Possibly, and for more details, see Study Question 5 below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UAP<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accounts of unidentified anomalous phenomena range from natural explanations to theories of alien involvement. Applying Hume’s evidential principles involves two steps: establishing the phenomenon and determining its explanation in relation to natural laws. Individual case studies limit the ability to validate phenomena, as robust evidence requires repeated observations and sound measurement. Even validated reports of unidentified phenomena would only confirm that something was observed, not necessarily indicate a supernatural cause. Depending on the evidence, the possibility of an intelligent alien species bound by natural laws is theoretically possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Providence <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Divine providence is considered a miracle as it involves supernatural intervention in the natural world, and such interventions, if real, would be ubiquitous. However, proving providence using Hume’s method is challenging, as distinguishing divine intervention from natural causes and chance is difficult. If you prayed for strength in a job interview and ultimately got the job, you could not know that the cause was God\u2019s intervention, a placebo effect, or you would have gotten the job without the prayer. A claim of divine providence would require evidence that substantially favors divine intervention over the natural explanations and chance coincidences that experience already makes available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Hume advises careful assessment of miracle claims, a habit that may lessen the damage from hasty acceptance or rejection. Beyond urging caution, he proposes a method to guide the evaluation. Marshal evidence for competing explanations, begin with explanations consistent with well-established experience, remain open to evidence that challenges those explanations, and let the balance of evidence determine the degree of belief you place in each explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study Questions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Has anyone in your experience claimed a miracle?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Have you ever seen a miracle claim used as a device of manipulative influence?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Have you observed any negative effects of believing in a miracle claim?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Have you observed any negative effects of not believing in a miracle claim?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Assume that numerous and diverse citizens over the globe experience a premonition that Mars and Venus will switch places. Afterward, numerous and diverse astronomers observe that the planets have indeed switched places. Thereafter, various pairs of planets of the solar system switch places, all this preceded by the widespread accurate premonitions of the shifts. Let’s say all this happens. It would indeed be extraordinary. What explanation would these occurrences suggest? Something natural? Something supernatural? Would the evidence establish the existence of a supernatural being, or would it establish only that our previous understanding of nature was incomplete?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    By Donald Gorassini, howinfluenceworks.com Many blogs on this site examine methods senders apply to sway others. By contrast, this article considers a tactic available to those receiving influence. It addresses how a person might react when someone offers an extraordinary event as proof for a belief or action. I draw on David Hume (1711\u20131776) to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-861","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/861","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=861"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/861\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":873,"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/861\/revisions\/873"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/howinfluenceworks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}