Yes, Hume is legitimate to anticipate that one should never be convinced to the occurrence of a miracle based on the testimony but by the evidence of rightful experiences. Hume described a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. For example, stones that drink milk - found to be faked and a woman miraculously escaped crushing by a truck in Nagpur. Both the incidents happened in India, where religious beliefs take hierarchy over the scientifically proved facts.
First example, stones that drink milk. This rumor became a viral talk that spread all over the country through media. In return, the public thronged to the temple to see the idol of god drinking milk. Number of devotees who visit the temple has drastically increased within days with so many offerings left at temple in the form of money and gold to the god. In fact, it is proved to be just a falsehood testimony by the illiterate people who thought that the god himself made his presence on earth. Scientists explained it as caused by capillary action of the material of the statue that absorbed the milk offered by the devotees.
Second example, a woman miraculously escapes the death crush by a truck in Nagpur, India. It is a true testimony which on listening no one would believe. This is really a miracle and it has evidence to prove. Here’s the link to prove that testimony is true [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8Fqx4Q-Dnk]. Very few people would have believed this if the proof is not displayed to verify the testimony. Hume is always hunger to explain this through his philosophy.
In the very first example, there is no evidence given in this paper to say that the testimony is true or false. There is no particular induction to believe this testimony of stones drinking the milk. In contrast, we have a good evidence to prove the second example of miraculous escape of a woman who might have crushed by a truck. This is what Hume’s philosophy is all about, the authenticity of a testimony.
Apart from the success stories of Hume’s philosophy there is no less criticism. Thomas Reid is one of the critics of the Hume’s philosophy. According to Thomas Reid, by intuition when we feel our senses responding in favor of a miracle that might have happened, we can believe in that testimony i.e., likelihood of believing a testimony is higher if we believe our senses are true whereas Hume agrees a testimony is true only when there is a evidence to prove the pronounced testimony.
In conclusion, testimonies are believed mostly if there is clue for the miracle happened and which does not have any clue of occurrence should be believed blank. Although Hume is consummately careful to develop the doctrine of his philosophy; His philosophy is left with the criticism in all aspects by the critics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle