A claim that merely redescribes observed regularities without identifying necessary connections between rotation and orbital velocity cannot serve as a genuine causal explanation, as Hume's critique of causal inference demands.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
(the statement argues this isn't sufficient for real explanation)
Simply describing patterns you notice repeatedly without explaining the underlying reason; like saying 'every time I flip a switch, the light turns on' without explaining how electricity works.