{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":15,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":15,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[6,2,6,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[10,2,10,3],[13,2,13,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910953591803321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Earman John"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Hume's abject failure : the argument against miracles / / John Earman"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Oxford ; ; New York, : Oxford University Press, 2000"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"9780198029311"]
[{"$nulls":4},"0198029314"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"xi, 217 p"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"212"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Miracles"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Nota di bibliografia","Includes bibliographical references (p. 87-94) and index."]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"pt. 1. Hume on miracles -- pt. 2. The documents."]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","This vital study offers a new interpretation of Hume's famous Of Miracles, which notoriously argues against the possibility of miracles. By situating Hume's popular argument in the context of the eighteenth-century debate on miracles, Earman shows Hume's argument to be largely unoriginal andchiefly without merit where it is original. Yet Earman constructively conceives how progress can be made on the issues that Hume's essay so provocatively posed about the ability of eyewitness testimony to establish the credibility of marvelous and miraculous events."]