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 Nomological-Explanatory solution therefore presuppose... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Nomological-Explanatory solution to the problem of induction begs the question

    The Nomological-Explanatory solution therefore presupposes realist commitments about unobserved regularities that are themselves inductive conclusions, not explanatory premises.

    ?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.Unobserved regularities cannot be directly accessed, so any claim about them relies on inductive inference from observed cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using inductive conclusions as explanatory premises creates circular reasoning: we explain observations by appeal to unobserved patterns we inferred from those same observations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This circularity undermines the nomological solution's claim to provide independent explanatory power for why regularities hold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All empirical knowledge involves some inductive step; this alone doesn't disqualify explanatory use if the inference is well-justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Explanation and justification are distinct: a premise can be inductively derived yet still explain phenomena if it captures genuine causal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge of circularity conflates using evidence to establish a law with using that law to explain phenomena—these are separate epistemic moves.
      ?

      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

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    All empirical knowledge involves some inductive step; this alone doesn't disqual...Explanation and justification are distinct: a premise can be inductively derived...The Nomological-Explanatory solution to the problem of induction begs the questi...The charge of circularity conflates using evidence to establish a law with using...
    +3 moreShow less
    This circularity undermines the nomological solution's claim to provide independ...Unobserved regularities cannot be directly accessed, so any claim about them rel...Using inductive conclusions as explanatory premises creates circular reasoning: ...

    Details

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