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's original regress shows that any attempt to validate induction by its past success necessarily smuggles reliability into the argumentative structure as a presupposition, not merely as a procedural rule.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Modern inductive logic doesn't require validating induction itself, only justifying specific inductive rules through meta-level considerations about their track record.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between presupposition and procedural rule may be semantic; reliability can function as both without creating the vicious circularity Hume identified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume's regress assumes we need a deductive proof of induction's validity, but inductive justification may operate under different rational standards than deductive ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Any inductive argument using past success as evidence presupposes the uniformity of nature, which cannot itself be justified inductively without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing between procedural rules and substantive presuppositions reveals that reliability assumptions operate logically prior to any empirical validation process.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The regress problem shows that bootstrapping arguments necessarily smuggle in their conclusion as a hidden premise, making the validation formally question-begging.
      ?

      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.