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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A priori reasoning cannot justify inductive inference

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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