Do you have Hume’s Syndrome?

[Student of X]

It seems to be rather widespread.

Hume’s Syndrome: Irrational Resistance to the Paranormal

MICHAEL GROSSO
Division of Perceptual Studies
University of Virginia, 210 Tenth Street NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902

Abstract

One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena. Among eighteenth-century Enlightenment writers, one type of resistance was evident that has persisted until present times. To illustrate, the present paper looks at David Hume’s discussion of miracles in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748/1955). Hume’s essay actually lays out a good case for some extraordinary events reported about the death of the Jansenist Francois de Paris—phenomena produced by the so-called ‘‘convulsionaries of St. Medard.’’ The contradiction is resolved by Hume himself, who naively reveals what motivates him to deny the overwhelming testimony he reviews: namely, his fear of validating religion.

This paper notes the same pressure to deny ‘‘miracles’’ in another eighteenth-century writer, Edward Gibbon; Gibbon, however, unlike Hume, yields to the pressure of evidence and admits one startling instance of a well-documented preternatural event. A third figure from the same century is cited, a rationalistic Promotor Fidei of the Catholic Church, Prosper Lambertini, who, ironically, may be cited as having advanced the cause of the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The lesson from history is not to be seduced by stereotypes: an empiricist can deny and distort facts; a religious believer can be critical and objective.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's so adorable when people mistakenly think they're clever.

 

[Student of X]

It's so adorable when people mistakenly think they're clever.

Thanks for providing a case in point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thanks for providing a case in point.

Likewise.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to be rather widespread.

Hume’s Syndrome: Irrational Resistance to the Paranormal

MICHAEL GROSSO
Division of Perceptual Studies
University of Virginia, 210 Tenth Street NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902

Abstract

One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena. Among eighteenth-century Enlightenment writers, one type of resistance was evident that has persisted until present times. To illustrate, the present paper looks at David Hume’s discussion of miracles in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748/1955). Hume’s essay actually lays out a good case for some extraordinary events reported about the death of the Jansenist Francois de Paris—phenomena produced by the so-called ‘‘convulsionaries of St. Medard.’’ The contradiction is resolved by Hume himself, who naively reveals what motivates him to deny the overwhelming testimony he reviews: namely, his fear of validating religion.

This paper notes the same pressure to deny ‘‘miracles’’ in another eighteenth-century writer, Edward Gibbon; Gibbon, however, unlike Hume, yields to the pressure of evidence and admits one startling instance of a well-documented preternatural event. A third figure from the same century is cited, a rationalistic Promotor Fidei of the Catholic Church, Prosper Lambertini, who, ironically, may be cited as having advanced the cause of the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The lesson from history is not to be seduced by stereotypes: an empiricist can deny and distort facts; a religious believer can be critical and objective.

This is a valid point. Now, all we need is some real evidence for miracles, & we may observe who resists it irrationally.
Perhaps some day, we will discover if anyone actually has Hume's Syndrome. But even if unverified, it does serve a
useful purpose for the faith afflicted....now they have a sciency sounding thingie to dismissively refer to us heathens.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is a valid point. Now, all we need is some real evidence for miracles, & we may observe who resists it irrationally.
Perhaps some day, we will discover if anyone actually has Hume's Syndrome. But even if unverified, it does serve a
useful purpose for the faith afflicted....now they have a sciency sounding thingie to dismissively refer to rational folk.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[McBell]

It seems to be rather widespread.

Hume’s Syndrome: Irrational Resistance to the Paranormal

MICHAEL GROSSO
Division of Perceptual Studies
University of Virginia, 210 Tenth Street NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902

Abstract

One of the obstacles to progress in psychical research is irrational resistance to the phenomena. Among eighteenth-century Enlightenment writers, one type of resistance was evident that has persisted until present times. To illustrate, the present paper looks at David Hume’s discussion of miracles in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748/1955). Hume’s essay actually lays out a good case for some extraordinary events reported about the death of the Jansenist Francois de Paris—phenomena produced by the so-called ‘‘convulsionaries of St. Medard.’’ The contradiction is resolved by Hume himself, who naively reveals what motivates him to deny the overwhelming testimony he reviews: namely, his fear of validating religion.

This paper notes the same pressure to deny ‘‘miracles’’ in another eighteenth-century writer, Edward Gibbon; Gibbon, however, unlike Hume, yields to the pressure of evidence and admits one startling instance of a well-documented preternatural event. A third figure from the same century is cited, a rationalistic Promotor Fidei of the Catholic Church, Prosper Lambertini, who, ironically, may be cited as having advanced the cause of the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The lesson from history is not to be seduced by stereotypes: an empiricist can deny and distort facts; a religious believer can be critical and objective.

Gee, now all they need to do is show that the paranormal and psychic stuffs actually exist outside the imaginations of those who believe they do.

THEN we can discuss if there are people who irrationally dismiss them.

 

[Student of X]

This is a valid point. Now, all we need is some real evidence for miracles, & we may observe who resists it irrationally.
Perhaps some day, we will discover if anyone actually has Hume's Syndrome. But even if unverified, it does serve a
useful purpose for the faith afflicted....now they have a sciency sounding thingie to dismissively refer to us heathens.

"Real evidence"?

So if I give you "evidence for miracles", and you find it unconvincing... is that evidence then to be classified as "unreal"?

Whereas if I give you evidence, and you find it convincing, is that then classified as "real"?

Who gets to decide what "real evidence" is, and how do they decide?

It looks as though we might have an epidemic on our hands! :sarcastic

 

[Revoltingest]

"Real evidence"?
So if I give you "evidence for miracles", and you find it unconvincing... is that evidence then to be classified as "unreal"?
Whereas if I give you evidence, and you find it convincing, is that then "real"?
Who gets to decide what "real evidence" is, and how do they decide?
It looks as though we might have an epidemic on our hands! :sarcastic

We may each judge evidence for ourselves.
Personally, I look to the scientific method, with an emphasis on peer review.
Since you haven't presented me with any evidence, we can't really address whether I suffer from Hume's Syndrome.

 

[McBell]

"Real evidence"?

So if I give you "evidence for miracles", and you find it unconvincing... is that evidence then to be classified as "unreal"?

Whereas if I give you evidence, and you find it convincing, is that then classified as "real"?

Who gets to decide what "real evidence" is, and how do they decide?

It looks as though we might have an epidemic on our hands! :sarcastic

I suspect that by "real evidence" he means "objective empirical evidence".
Got any?

 

[Riverwolf]

What's the point of such an arbitrary syndrome? You can't just make up new syndromes to fit something you find odd. I might call being a social butterfly a syndrome of some sort, or those who are not interested in art (or overtly interested in art) a syndrome.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suspect that by "real evidence" he means "objective empirical evidence".
Got any?

Now, that would be a miracle.

 

[McBell]

Now, that would be a miracle.

that Revoltingest meant "objective empirical evidence" or that Student of X has any "objective empirical evidence"?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

that Revoltingest meant "objective empirical evidence" or that Student of X has any "objective empirical evidence"?

Seriously?

 

[McBell]

What's the point of such an arbitrary syndrome? You can't just make up new syndromes to fit something you find odd. I might call being a social butterfly a syndrome of some sort, or those who are not interested in art (or overtly interested in art) a syndrome.

My guess is so that those advocating the paranormal/psychic things have something sciencey sounding they can toss out when they are being called to task.

 

[Student of X]

I suspect that by "real evidence" he means "objective empirical evidence".
Got any?

And I suspect that by "real evidence" he means "evidence that supports my particular worldview".

And yes I do have "objective empirical evidence".

 

[McBell]

Seriously?

What?

So sorry, I was distracted by all the paranormal stuffs going on in the next life time.
Can you repeat the question?

 

[Revoltingest]

What's the point of such an arbitrary syndrome? You can't just make up new syndromes to fit something you find odd. I might call being a social butterfly a syndrome of some sort, or those who are not interested in art (or overtly interested in art) a syndrome.

Even though I mock the usefulness of Hume's Syndrome, he has a legitimate point & it's worth examining.
We shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, even if the discussion is just for the edification of the OP.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And I suspect that by "real evidence" he means "evidence that supports my particular worldview".

And yes I do have "objective empirical evidence".

Then your suspicions are as misguided as your assumptions.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I suspect that by "real evidence" he means "evidence that supports my particular worldview".

Now, now...that wasn't what I said or meant.
I stand ready to be surprised & have my Weltanshauung toppled, which happens now & then.
But one cannot blame my dismissal of claimed miracles merely by accusing me of having Hume's Syndrome.
You cannot tout the weight of evidence you haven't yet presented.