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
    Empirical causal laws of nature are necessary and univers... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Empirical causal laws of nature are necessary and universally valid

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.We begin with formal a priori conditions of the possibility of experience in general
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We perceive various actual events and processes by means of sensation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We assemble these events and processes together via necessary connections using the a priori conditions of the possibility of experience
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The a priori category of causation structures experience in general, but cannot determine which specific events are causally linked to which others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Empirical causal laws (e.g., 'heat expands metals') require inductive generalization beyond what pure a priori synthesis can guarantee.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the necessity Kant secures is formal and transcendental, not materially sufficient to validate specific empirical causal laws as necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's naturalism establishes that no statement is immune to revision in light of recalcitrant experience, including putative causal laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If empirical causal laws are genuinely empirical, they inherit the revisability and fallibility that defines empirical knowledge, precluding strict necessity.
      ?

      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

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception1 linked

    Related

    Adding the a priori concept of cause to a merely inductive empirical rule elevat...Empirical causal laws (e.g., 'heat expands metals') require inductive generaliza...If empirical causal laws are genuinely empirical, they inherit the revisability ...Quine's naturalism establishes that no statement is immune to revision in light ...
    +5 moreShow less
    The a priori category of causation structures experience in general, but cannot ...Therefore, the necessity Kant secures is formal and transcendental, not material...We assemble these events and processes together via necessary connections using ...We begin with formal a priori conditions of the possibility of experience in gen...We perceive various actual events and processes by means of sensation

    Similar

    Recognition of the law of causality is indispensable for the normative...87%If the general causal principle is true, then particular causal laws m...84%This causal law applies uniformly to all phenomena.84%The law of causality is an a priori norm for natural science84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: kant-hume-causality
    View source passageHide passage
    Thus, in the example from § 29 of the Prolegomena, Kant begins from a mere “empirical rule” (that heat always follows illumination by the sun) and then proceeds to a “necessary and universally valid” law by adding the a priori concept of cause to this (so far) merely inductive rule. The very same three-stage procedure described by the three Postulates as a whole—in which we begin with the formal a priori conditions of the possibility of experience in general, perceive various actual events and p
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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