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
    Peter Strawson's 'dissolution' argues that demanding a no... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Our expectation that the future will conform to the past is determined by custom and habit, not by reason or logical necessity.

    Peter Strawson's 'dissolution' argues that demanding a non-circular justification for induction sets an illegitimately high standard borrowed from deductive logic.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Deductive and inductive reasoning have fundamentally different logical structures, so applying deductive standards to induction conflates distinct epistemic norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A successful inductive argument need only show that premises make conclusion probable, not certain—demanding non-circular certainty is categorically inappropriate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Insisting on non-circular justification for induction leads to paralyzing skepticism that undermines all empirical reasoning and practical knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Showing that induction differs from deduction doesn't explain why circular reasoning should be acceptable in any domain of justified belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if we lower justificatory standards for induction, we still need some account of why inductive inference reliably tracks truth—not just dismissing the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strawson's dissolution abandons rather than solves Hume's problem; pragmatic vindication doesn't establish that induction is rationally justified.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A successful inductive argument need only show that premises make conclusion pro...Deductive and inductive reasoning have fundamentally different logical structure...Even if we lower justificatory standards for induction, we still need some accou...Insisting on non-circular justification for induction leads to paralyzing skepti...
    +3 moreShow less
    Our expectation that the future will conform to the past is determined by custom...Showing that induction differs from deduction doesn't explain why circular reaso...Strawson's dissolution abandons rather than solves Hume's problem; pragmatic vin...

    Details

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