Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Hume's regularity theory establishes that causal relations require observable contiguity and succession between cause and effect across instances.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Constant conjunction alone cannot distinguish genuine causes from mere coincidences or common effects of a third cause.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Singular causal claims (this match caused this flame) refer to particular events, not repeated patterns or laws.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Quantum mechanics shows indeterministic but causally efficacious processes that violate strict regularity requirements.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Observable patterns are all we can directly access; unobservable 'powers' or 'necessities' lack empirical grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Regularity theory avoids metaphysical excess by explaining causation through constant conjunction without hidden mechanisms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Science successfully predicts and controls phenomena using repeated patterns, validating regularity as causally sufficient.
?
How convincing is this?
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.