Okay, so in the last segment, we talked about David Hume's argument that you should never believe that a miracle's occurred on the base of testimony. Lots of ways you could challenge Hume's argument, one way you could challenge, you could challenge his definition of a miracle, you could say he's got that wrong. But I think there's a really, another interesting way to challenge the argument. Challenge the assumption, you should only trust testimony when you've got evidence the testifier is likely to be right. And that's the premise of Hume's argument that his most important contemporary critic, Thomas Reid Took issue with. So Reid was a minister in the Church of Scotland and a professor at the Universities of Aberdeen and Glasgow. He challenged this assumption of Hume's in a book called Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense, which was first published in 1764. And the challenge comes in a section that I'll read entitled of the analogy between perception and the credit we give human testimony. So Reed argued that trusting testimony is just like trusting your senses. Trusting what you see around you. To believe in something on the basis of what someone else says is just like believing on the basis of seeing it with your own eyes Reed thought. Here's the interesting thing, we don't only trust our senses when we've got evidence that they're likely to be right. Hume and Reid, one of the few things that they agreed on was that we don't have any kind of good evidence that our senses are likely to be right. So Hume and Reid both thought we don't trust our senses on the basis of evidence that they're likely to be right. So what Reed is going to challenge is Hume's assumption we should only trust testimony on the basis of evidence that the testifier is likely to be right. So why does he think that? What's his argument? Well Hume and Reed both thought there were innate principles that governed how we think and how we feel. They wouldn't put it this way but they both thought we were hard wired to think in certain ways. So they both thought, for example, that we're hardwired to trust our senses, we're hardwired to believe what we see before our eyes. But here's what Reid thought that Hume didn't think. Reid thought that we're also hardwired to trust testimony. He said there's an innate principle of credulity he called it. And here's what that principle was, the disposition to confide in the veracity of others, and to believe what they tell us.