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
    Mellor's argument relies on an equal distribution of G-ch... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Mellor's negative argument is inadequate because it fails to show that what holds in one world holds in every relevantly similar world where G-chains and H-chains are not equally distributed.

    Mellor's argument relies on an equal distribution of G-chains and H-chains, which is a selective and non-general condition.

    CausationSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A negative argument of Mellor's type should demonstrate that its conclusion hold...Mellor does not prove the result generalizes to worlds where G-chains and H-chai...Mellor's negative argument is inadequate because it fails to show that what hold...

    Similar

    Mellor's negative argument is inadequate because it fails to show that...83%Mellor does not prove the result generalizes to worlds where G-chains ...82%In Mellor's G&H world, the number of G-chains and H-chains is equal, m...76%James's argument is not based on the abstract possibility that any res...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: causation-backwards
    View source passageHide passage
    Some philosophers have not found this argument very convincing. Faye (1994) has pointed to the following problematic issues. First, Mellor measures the probability of singular events (propensities) instead of the probability of certain kinds of events. Second, he does not differentiate between circumstances in which a \(B\) is followed by an \(A\) and those in which a \(B\) is not followed by an \(A\). The argument is valid only if it can be proved, and not be stipulated, that (1) and (3) happen

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective