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 objection that singular causal judgments are made wit... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The objection that singular causal judgments are made without belief in the associated universal generalization is consistent with Davidson's extensionalism about causality

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Davidson holds that while we may not believe in the universal generalization associated with a singular causal statement, this is consistent with there being some universal generalization stated in a different vocabulary that covers that statement
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's extensionalism requires that causal relations hold between events under any true description, not merely under some possible redescription in another vocabulary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the covering generalization exists only in an unknown future vocabulary, it cannot ground the truth of the singular causal judgment at the time it is made.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A causal claim whose truth depends on generalizations not yet formulable violates the extensionalist commitment that causal facts are determinate and description-independent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Anscombe argued in 'Causality and Determination' that singular causal knowledge is epistemically primitive and does not derive its warrant from subsumption under general laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If singular causal judgments are epistemically justified without appeal to any generalization, the posited covering law serves no explanatory or justificatory role in Davidson's account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A universal generalization that is neither known nor epistemically operative in grounding a judgment cannot rescue Davidson's extensionalism from the charge that causation is genuinely non-nomological.
      ?

      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

    Related

    A causal claim whose truth depends on generalizations not yet formulable violate...A universal generalization that is neither known nor epistemically operative in ...Anscombe argued in 'Causality and Determination' that singular causal knowledge ...Davidson holds that while we may not believe in the universal generalization ass...
    +3 moreShow less
    Davidson's extensionalism requires that causal relations hold between events und...If singular causal judgments are epistemically justified without appeal to any g...If the covering generalization exists only in an unknown future vocabulary, it c...

    Similar

    Davidson holds that while we may not believe in the universal generali...90%Davidson rejects Hume's analysis that singular causal statements can b...89%We make singular causal judgments all the time without believing in, a...89%Davidson holds that a covering generalization is required for the trut...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    An initial objection is that Hume’s analysis of singular causal statements (‘a caused b’ is true if and only if ‘whenever an A occurs, it is followed by an occurrence of a B’), which articulates his own version of the cause-law principle, is not an accurate rendering of the way in which we typically use the term ‘cause’. We are confident in judgments such as ‘Harry’s smoking caused his lung cancer’ while knowing that in fact not all smokers are stricken by lung cancer. This point is entirely gen
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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