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 Davidson has not provided adequate argument for the cause-law principle

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Davidson has not established that strict laws (as opposed to ceteris paribus laws) are required for the dispositional vocabulary to operate as it does
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without that establishment, the rationale for the cause-law principle is missing
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity theory, which Davidson implicitly relies on, entails that causation requires exceptionless regularities, but this is contested by singularist accounts (Ducasse, Anscombe).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Anscombe's 1971 'Causality and Determination' demonstrates that singular causal relations are ontologically primitive and do not require subsumption under laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If singular causation is intelligible without laws, Davidson's cause-law principle lacks the metaphysical foundation needed to generate the anomalism of the mental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cartwright's work on ceteris paribus laws shows that even physics employs only hedged, idealized laws rather than the exceptionless strict laws Davidson requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If strict deterministic laws are unavailable even in paradigmatically physical domains, Davidson cannot coherently privilege them as the criterion distinguishing genuine causal explanation.
      ?

      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.