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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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