Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Reid argues that the natural belief in causation is an original, non-inferential principle of common sense, not a product of accumulated habit.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Developmental evidence shows causal understanding emerges gradually, not as a complete original principle present from birth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cross-cultural variation in causal attributions suggests learning and cultural conditioning shape causal beliefs significantly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Reid conflates the felt immediacy of causal judgment with its being non-inferential or non-learned.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Infants demonstrate causal reasoning before experiencing sufficient habit formation, suggesting innate causal cognition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Causal perception occurs immediately and involuntarily, unlike learned habits which require gradual reinforcement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
All empirical knowledge presupposes causation; it cannot be derived from experience without circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
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.