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 Causal decision theory is justified in using causal principles despite positivist objections

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity theory shows causal relations reduce to constant conjunction, making 'causal principles' epistemically equivalent to evidential correlations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If causation reduces to patterns of association, CDT's appeal to causal structure over evidential structure collapses into a distinction without a difference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Price and Menzies argue that causal knowledge is itself grounded in agent-relative evidential experience, making CDT's causal primitives epistemically prior to no alternative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Discrediting positivism as a framework does not automatically validate any particular positive account of causation sufficient to ground CDT's interventionist assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Positivism can be discredited as a philosophical framework
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causation can be clarified sufficiently so that puzzles about causation no longer give decision theory reason to avoid it
      ?

      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.