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 Empirical causal laws of nature are necessary and universally valid

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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