Chemistry has its laws. If someone were to mix an aqueous solution of silver nitrate and salt and obtain a different result [than AgCl], this would require a momentary suspension of the laws of chemistry. In short, it would require a "miracle." But Hume himself dismisses any belief in miracles as preposterous. "Uniform experience", he write, "amounts to a proof ... a direct and full proof ... against the existence of any miracle." According to Hume, the sane person expects a non-miraculous event "with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future eistence of that event." If, therefore, part experience provides a "full proof" of future events, inductive reasoning must provide "full proof" of its conclusions. When we compare Hume's position on miracles with his stance on induction, it reveals an obvious conflict, not to say a contradiction, defying resolution.