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

    Aggregate Confidence:12%

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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