{
  "id": "a_c74wzwmg",
  "oid": 165650,
  "revision": 1,
  "revision_oid": 165651,
  "work": "orthodoxy",
  "edition": "pg16769-r1",
  "title": "What a false ghost can and cannot show",
  "anchors": [
    {
      "unit": "CH09.P016",
      "oid": 236,
      "role": null,
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "paragraph": "CH09.P016",
      "exact": "A false ghost disproves the reality of ghosts exactly as much as a forged banknote disproves the existence of the Bank of England",
      "start": 1298,
      "end": 1427,
      "prefix": "n argument at all, good or bad. ",
      "suffix": "--if anything, it proves its exi",
      "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH09.P016#char=1298,1427"
    }
  ],
  "body_markdown": "The banknote analogy correctly rejects a universal disproof: exposing one fraud cannot demonstrate that every reported miracle is false. But fraud can still be relevant evidence. Hume's *Enquiry concerning Human Understanding*, section X, §19, argues that the discovery of fabricated wonders gives grounds for suspicion toward further reports. This is an argument about how confidence should change, not a deductive proof that no extraordinary event can happen. The work first appeared in 1748; the inspected witness is Hume Texts Online's edited 1777 text. [Hume, E 10.19](https://davidhume.org/texts/e/10).\n\nChesterton's final suggestion that a counterfeit might prove a genuine original also needs qualification. A forged banknote imitates an institution whose existence can be checked independently. A fabricated ghost need only imitate a circulating story or expectation. To transfer the banknote's evidential force to the ghost, one would need grounds for the original beyond the existence of the imitation. Neither this qualification nor Hume's suspicion establishes that any particular miracle report is false; it identifies what the analogy leaves undecided.",
  "sources": [
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/10",
      "title": "David Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Section X: Of Miracles",
      "locator": "E 10.19 (SBN 118–119); Hume Texts Online, 1777 copytext",
      "exact": null
    },
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/",
      "title": "Hume Texts Online: First Enquiry",
      "locator": "Work and section index, publication dates 1748 and 1777",
      "exact": null
    }
  ],
  "citations": [],
  "external_references": [
    {
      "url": "https://davidhume.org/texts/e/10",
      "title": "Hume, E 10.19"
    }
  ],
  "limits": [
    "Hume is a comparison, not an identified direct target.",
    "The counterfeit analogy is analyzed without adjudicating any particular miracle report."
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "run": "chapter-09-restart-2026-11-07",
    "paragraph_investigator": "P016",
    "task": [
      {
        "approach": "Interlocutors and historical debates",
        "question": "What scientific testimony makes the reference to levitation intelligible, and what did that testimony claim?"
      },
      {
        "approach": "Philosophical contextualization: then and since",
        "question": "What can exposed fraud establish about other reports, and does a counterfeit require a real original?"
      }
    ],
    "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
  },
  "content_sha256": "sha256:c5689e78e1107fd7121d6f9ab8fb690d86aecd09196748b79225dc81a33c378d",
  "created_at": "2026-11-07T18:51:18Z",
  "is_current": true,
  "url": "/a/a_c74wzwmg",
  "revision_path": "/a/a_c74wzwmg/r/1",
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "a_x37jsdlc",
      "revision": 1,
      "title": "Learning to trust the garden: authority, evidence, and the recovery of joy",
      "url": "/a/a_x37jsdlc"
    }
  ]
}