Reddit reply in r/AcademicQuran: how do historians approach miracle claims a brief — November 15, 2024 · lxas0kn | Ali Shukri Amin

All of the re-classification stuff I discussed in my other comment with citations that describe exactly what you are describing as one of the main solutions to the "truth-seeking" issue that people post with methodological naturalism, and is in-fact one of the dominant approaches to methodological naturalism. I don't know why we're still discussing that.

Hume's argument against miracles is different and is named after him. The truth-seeking objection is why methodological naturalists specifically offer that - in the case where empirical evidence is abundant and available - they wouldn't refuse to measure some phenomenon that they are observing just because it's outside of the previously understood capacity of natural processes.

Having a general belief about how the way the world works based on your own individual experience or even the experience of all mankind is obviously not availability bias but is also not what we're discussing. If we were discussing time or something that's axiomatic and I was arguing against that, then certainly mass experience would count as evidence. However, we're discussing something very specific - a kind of historical report about a phenomenon which may or may not exist - in which this kind of inductive reasoning is not informative. Your broadly gesturing to the fact that you argue most people don't experience miracles doesn't count as statistical knowledge.

You're right, Hume's argument does also apply to an individual eyewitness probability. That slipped my mind.