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 Hume demonstrated that the inference from 'every event we have examined has a cause' to 'every event has a cause' is an illegitimate ampliative leap.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hume's critique conflates logical validity with rational justification; we can rationally accept ampliative inferences without them being deductively valid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rejecting all induction as illegitimate leads to radical skepticism that undermines science, practical reasoning, and Hume's own empirical philosophy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Causation may not require strict universality; acknowledging that causal principles hold contingently or probabilistically avoids the uniformity problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Finite observation can never logically entail universal claims; induction requires assuming nature's uniformity, which cannot itself be inductively justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Past regularities provide no logical guarantee about unobserved cases; we cannot derive necessity from contingent empirical patterns alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The leap assumes the unobserved future resembles the observed past, but this assumption itself needs justification independent of the induction being validated.
      ?

      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.