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
    The laws of nature and the principles of logic are irredu... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The laws of nature and the principles of logic are irreducible to the process of empirical generalization

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Principles such as the principle of non-contradiction cannot be obtained merely by induction
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Such principles cannot be obtained by an accumulation of observations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's methods demonstrate that logical principles like non-contradiction are confirmed through universal perceptual agreement across all observed cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A principle confirmed without a single counterinstance across all human experience is functionally indistinguishable from an empirical generalization with maximal inductive support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The psychological necessity we feel toward logical laws tracks evolutionary selection for accurate reasoning, not access to mind-independent logical facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's holism entails that logical principles occupy the interior of the web of belief but remain revisable in response to sufficiently recalcitrant experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If logical laws are in principle revisable under empirical pressure, as paraconsistent logics applied to quantum phenomena suggest, they cannot be categorically distinct from empirical generalizations.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism2 linked

    Related

    A principle confirmed without a single counterinstance across all human experien...If logical laws are in principle revisable under empirical pressure, as paracons...Mill's methods demonstrate that logical principles like non-contradiction are co...Principles such as the principle of non-contradiction cannot be obtained merely ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Quine's holism entails that logical principles occupy the interior of the web of...Such principles cannot be obtained by an accumulation of observationsThe psychological necessity we feel toward logical laws tracks evolutionary sele...

    Similar

    Stumpf opposes the reduction of the principles and laws of logic and o...84%The laws of nature are those generalisations in the collection of trut...82%Particular empirical laws are determined in relation to actual percept...80%The principle of the uniformity of nature is an absolute presuppositio...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: stumpf
    View source passageHide passage
    However, this criticism of the Kantian theory of knowledge does not make Stumpf an advocate of psychologism. For Stumpf acknowledges with critical philosophy that we must maintain a strict concept of necessity and thus oppose the reduction of the principles and laws of logic and of science in general to simple empirical generalizations. Stumpf here refers explicitly to J. S. Mill, and maintains that the laws of nature and the principles of logic such as the principle of non-contradiction, for ex
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit