Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Any justification of the Uniformity Principle that appeals to its past success must itself assume future resemblance to past instances to count as evidence.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The circularity is modest and pragmatically unavoidable—not all circular reasoning is vicious if it's the only rational option available.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Past success evidence doesn't assume uniformity; it merely reports observed patterns and predicts their continuation without metaphysical claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing between 'assuming uniformity' and 'reporting empirical patterns' dissolves the charge of hidden assumption-smuggling.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Past success as evidence requires assuming future conditions resemble past ones—this circularity is unavoidable in any inductive argument.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Using past regularities to justify future uniformity without independent warrant commits the fallacy of begging the question.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
No non-circular justification of induction has succeeded, suggesting circularity may be inherent to the enterprise itself.
?
How convincing is this?
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.