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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.