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
    Constant conjunction is neither necessary nor sufficient ... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The Humean account of causation faces the hard problem of distinguishing genuine laws from mere regularities that are not laws.

    Constant conjunction is neither necessary nor sufficient for the presence of a genuine law.

    Causation
    ?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.

    Topics

    Causation

    Related

    Hume identifies causation with constant conjunction and laws with constant conju...The Humean account of causation faces the hard problem of distinguishing genuine...Without a principled distinction between genuine laws and non-law regularities, ...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Constant conjunction is neither necessary nor sufficient for the prese...93%Constant conjunction is not necessary for the presence of a genuine ca...91%Constant conjunction is not sufficient for the presence of a genuine c...91%If constant conjunction were necessary for a genuine law, then whereve...87%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reid
    View source passageHide passage
    The problem is made clearer by Reid's second objection to Hume's analysis of causation and constant conjunction. He writes, “It follows from [Hume's] definition of a cause, that night is the cause of day, and day the cause of night. For no two things have more constantly followed each other since the beginning of the world” (EAP 4.9, 249). Since we don't ordinarily think that day is the cause of night, or vice versa, Hume must deny that the two are actually constantly conjoined, or, rather, he m

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective