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 regularity theory shows necessity is a psychological projection onto constant conjunctions, not a feature of empirical laws themselves.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Distinguishing counterfactuals requires genuine modal facts—'if heated, water would boil' differs from mere psychological habit or belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Laws of nature explain why constant conjunctions occur; reducing laws to psychological projections makes explanation circular or impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If necessity is purely subjective projection, causal reasoning becomes arbitrary, undercutting justification for induction itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We observe only constant conjunction in nature, never necessity itself—necessity is never directly perceived as an empirical datum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our sense of necessity arises from repeated exposure creating habits of expectation, which explains why necessity feels compelling psychologically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Positing unobservable metaphysical necessity violates empiricist principles by invoking entities beyond what experience can justify.
      ?

      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.