1. Swinburne on testimony - 1 Swinburne on miracles & historical evidence FThesis: the kind of reasoning used in evaluating testimony & historical evidence is the same as that used in testing scientific theories. Hence historical testimony & other historical evidence should not regarded as weaker knowledge than scientific theories.

2. Swinburne on testimony - 2 Swinburne on miracles & historical evidence GWhat is the type of reasoning used? One type of inductive generalization –E.G. äI read Josephus & there is a passage (A) in which he says that a catastrophic volcano occurred in Asia Minor in 35 A.D. & on the basis of geological evidence I know this is true.

3. Swinburne on testimony - 3 Swinburne on miracles & historical evidence äIn passage B, he writes that Hernandes became ruler of the Roman province of Egypt in 48 A.D. & on the basis of other evidence I know this is true. äIn passage C, etc. äJosephus is a reliable historian in A, B, & C.

4. Swinburne on testimony - 4 Swinburne on miracles & historical evidence äTherefore, I assume he is reliable about D. Conclusion: Testimony, when checked by standard inductive reasoning, ought to be given the same weight as inductive reasoning about nature. Indeed, this evidence can sometimes outweight the evidence of physical impossibility (407).

5. Swinburne on testimony - 5 Swinburne on miracles & historical evidence GAddendum: In The Existence of God, Swinburne introduces the Principle of Testimony: In the absence of special considerations, the experiences of others are probably as they report them.