- In "Flew (Anthony) - Time Travel and the Paranormal", Roy Sorensen adopts a strategy of curiously, not to say perversely, indirect approach. For he begins by assuming that Hume redivivus would dismiss any reports of ostensible time travel on grounds similar to those upon which the historic Hume did actually dismiss all reports of the occurrence of 'miracles and prodigies'. So, Sorensen sadly says, 'the reasoning underlying Hume's famous scepticism about miracles dooms my tales of time travel to an incredulous reception'. And furthermore, Sorensen continues, 'the scepticism about time travel that I attribute to Hume should also be shared by his followers'. Sorensen then proceeds to explain that for him:
The key question will not be 'Is time travel possible?' We shall instead ask whether it is possible to justify a belief in a report of time travel. The metaphysical issue will only be addressed in response to the question of whether one can be an epistemological sceptic about time travel without being a metaphysical sceptic.
- But now, by what right does Sorensen assume that either the historic Hume or any of 'his followers' among our own contemporaries either must or even could allow talk about time travel to be coherent? It is perhaps conceivable that an overwhelming campaign of subtle and plausible persuasion might, in the end, have induced Hume to concede that such talk is not, what at both first and second sight it appears to be, paradigmatically self-contradictory. Nevertheless, until and unless this has been conceded, there is no room for raising any speculative questions as to whether or, if so, how we might know that someone had, as a matter of fact, returned from a time tour.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2018
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)