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

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

    Causation
    Overall Strength:0%
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dispositional essentialism (Ellis, Bird) holds that causal laws are grounded in intrinsic powers of objects, not regularities between distinct events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A fragile vase retains its disposition to shatter even if never struck, meaning the causal law holds without any conjunction of events ever occurring.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, constant conjunction can be absent while a genuine causal law is fully present, making conjunction unnecessary for lawhood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reichenbach's common cause principle shows that constant conjunctions between barometers and storms reflect shared causal ancestry, not direct causal laws between conjoined events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If constant conjunction were sufficient for genuine causal laws, every epiphenomenal correlation and every case of joint effects would constitute a law, which produces absurd proliferation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nancy Cartwright's 'capacities' framework further establishes that genuine laws describe causal powers operative even in heterogeneous, uncontrolled conditions where strict regularities fail to appear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Constant conjunction is not necessary for the presence of a genuine causal law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constant conjunction is not sufficient for the presence of a genuine causal law.
      ?

      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

    Causation

    Related

    A fragile vase retains its disposition to shatter even if never struck, meaning ...Constant conjunction is not necessary for the presence of a genuine causal law.Constant conjunction is not sufficient for the presence of a genuine causal law.Dispositional essentialism (Ellis, Bird) holds that causal laws are grounded in ...
    +4 moreShow less
    If constant conjunction were sufficient for genuine causal laws, every epiphenom...Nancy Cartwright's 'capacities' framework further establishes that genuine laws ...Reichenbach's common cause principle shows that constant conjunctions between ba...Therefore, constant conjunction can be absent while a genuine causal law is full...

    Similar

    Constant conjunction is not sufficient for the presence of a genuine c...99%Constant conjunction is not necessary for the presence of a genuine ca...98%Constant conjunction is neither necessary nor sufficient for the prese...93%The Second Analogy does not establish that particular causal laws are ...88%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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