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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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