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 The application of probability concepts does not involve any presuppositions about the external world or the law of causality.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Applying probability to empirical events requires assuming that past frequencies are relevant to future outcomes, which presupposes causal regularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's problem of induction shows that no purely a priori reasoning can license inference from observed to unobserved cases without causal assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the application—as distinct from the formal calculus—necessarily imports presuppositions about the world's causal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frequentist interpretations of probability, defended by Venn and von Mises, define probability as the limiting frequency of events in physical sequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A limiting frequency is a fact about the external world, not a consequence derivable from the concept of probability alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any application of probability under the frequentist interpretation thus presupposes stable, law-governed regularities in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The calculus of probability is purely a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The calculus of probability is solely derived from the concept of probability itself.
      ?

      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.