Abstract
THE reply to my letter under the above heading (NATURE, Jan. 26, p. 130) rather misses my point. I was not discussing those points of contact between Mithraism and Christianity for which there is historic evidence, such as the ideas which Tertullian accused the former of borrowing from the latter. My contention was that in the particular example which I quoted the evidence was based on the fallacy—let us call it “philonism”—which consists in attributing undue significance to the analogies or parallels that can be drawn between every two groups of ideas.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
HUME, C. The Methodology of the Inexact Sciences. Nature 123, 206 (1929). https://doi.org/10.1038/123206b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/123206b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.