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 Particular empirical laws are necessary in the sense that they are determined in relation to actual perceptions in accordance with the general conditions of experience.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity theory shows necessity is a psychological projection onto constant conjunctions, not a feature of empirical laws themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessity derives from the mind's habits rather than world-structures, particular empirical laws carry no genuine modal force beyond observed regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant's transcendental conditions ground necessity in cognition's form, but this epistemic necessity cannot be transferred to the content of particular empirical laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's a posteriori necessities demonstrate that necessity in natural laws is metaphysically grounded in essences, not in conditions of possible experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If particular empirical laws like 'water boils at 100°C' are necessary due to microphysical essences, their necessity is independent of Kantian experiential conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An effect can be cognized as necessary on the basis of an empirical law relating it to its cause, where the effect's connection with the actual is determined in accordance with the general conditions of experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The general conditions of experience essentially include the pure laws of the understanding (i.e., the principles of the understanding).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Particular empirical laws are determined in relation to actual perceptions in the same way that effects are determined in relation to their causes under empirical laws.
      ?

      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.