Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A priori reasoning cannot justify inductive inference — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A priori reasoning cannot justify inductive inference

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hume's first horn of his dilemma rules out any a priori reasoning for establishing the uniformity of nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A change in the course of nature cannot be ruled out by any demonstrative argument or abstract reasoning a priori
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant argues that the principle of universal causation is a synthetic a priori category of the understanding, not derived from experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If causality is a precondition for coherent experience rather than an empirical generalization, Hume's dilemma presupposes what it needs to prove.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A priori justification of induction need not assert contingent uniformity of nature but only the necessary structure imposed by cognition on experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P.F. Strawson argues that demanding justification for induction is a category mistake, since induction is itself constitutive of what 'rational inference' means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If inductive practice defines the standard of empirical rationality, then a priori conceptual analysis of that standard counts as legitimate justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's dilemma illicitly assumes deductive justification is the only valid form, begging the question against analytic vindications of inductive norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A change in the course of nature cannot be ruled out by any demonstrative argume...A priori justification of induction need not assert contingent uniformity of nat...Hume's dilemma illicitly assumes deductive justification is the only valid form,...Hume's first horn of his dilemma rules out any a priori reasoning for establishi...
    +4 moreShow less
    If causality is a precondition for coherent experience rather than an empirical ...If inductive practice defines the standard of empirical rationality, then a prio...Kant argues that the principle of universal causation is a synthetic a priori ca...P.F. Strawson argues that demanding justification for induction is a category mi...

    Similar

    Reason cannot justify inductive inference from past to future.89%An a priori argument establishing probable conclusions counts as a pri...87%A purely a priori argument for inductive inference cannot be found via...86%IBE cannot provide a non-circular justification of inductive inference82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: induction-problem
    View source passageHide passage
    However, recent commentators have argued that in the historical context that Hume was situated in, the distinction he draws between demonstrative and probable arguments has little to do with whether or not the argument has a deductive form (Owen 1999; Garrett 2002). In addition, the class of inferences that establish conclusions whose negation is a contradiction may include not just deductively valid inferences from a priori premises, but any inferences that can be drawn using a priori reasoning
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit