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
    Hume's regularity account is not undermined by the possib... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Hume's regularity account is not undermined by the possibility of perceptual error any more than Ducasse's singular causation account is

    CausationSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ducasse's account can be wrong in that we may falsely believe we have perceived the only change preceding an event
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's account can equally be wrong in that we may falsely believe we have perceived instances of types bearing a regular relation to each other
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hume does not abandon the regularity account merely because perceptual error about regularities is possible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity account is grounded in repeated public observations, making perceptual errors correctable through intersubjective verification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ducasse's singular causation requires only one private observation of contiguity and succession, offering no analogous corrective mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The symmetry the claim asserts therefore breaks down: fallibilism about regularities is self-correcting in ways singular causation fallibilism is not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's account entails that causal claims are revisable in light of counter-instances, grounding a principled epistemology of error-correction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ducasse's account, as Broad and later Molnar argued, lacks internal resources to distinguish genuine singular causation from mere coincidental succession.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Tolerating perceptual error equally across both accounts obscures this asymmetry in revisability, rendering the parity claim logically superficial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismCausation

    Related

    Ducasse's account can be wrong in that we may falsely believe we have perceived ...Ducasse's account, as Broad and later Molnar argued, lacks internal resources to...Ducasse's singular causation requires only one private observation of contiguity...Hume does not abandon the regularity account merely because perceptual error abo...
    +6 moreShow less
    Hume's account can equally be wrong in that we may falsely believe we have perce...Hume's account entails that causal claims are revisable in light of counter-inst...Hume's regularity account is grounded in repeated public observations, making pe...The symmetry the claim asserts therefore breaks down: fallibilism about regulari...Therefore the same fallibilist tolerance must apply to Ducasse's accountTolerating perceptual error equally across both accounts obscures this asymmetry...

    Similar

    Hume does not abandon the regularity account merely because perceptual...86%Without a principled distinction between genuine laws and non-law regu...79%The Humean account of causation faces the hard problem of distinguishi...78%God's causal activity is not superfluous.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    Simply put, Ducasse defined some particular event c as the cause of some effect e if and only if c was the only change occurring in the immediate environment of e just prior to e. The striking of the match is the cause of the flaming match just insofar as the striking is the only change occurring in the immediate vicinity of the flaming match just prior to the flaming of the match. Ducasse intended this definition to rebut Hume’s claim that singular causal relations between particular events mus
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit