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 There is no demonstrative argument for the uniformity principle (UP)

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant argues that the uniformity of nature is a synthetic a priori principle, grounded in the transcendental structure of possible experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If UP is a condition of the possibility of experience rather than a contingent empirical claim, its negation is not merely inconceivable but transcendentally incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A transcendentally incoherent negation cannot serve as Hume's criterion for the absence of a demonstrative argument, since that criterion presupposes empiricist constraints Kant rejects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's conceivability criterion conflates logical possibility with the absence of rational justification, a conflation challenged by rationalist epistemology from Leibniz onward.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P.F. Strawson argues that inductive inference is internally constitutive of what we mean by 'rationality', making demands for external justification of UP a category mistake.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If UP is analytically embedded in our concept of rational belief-formation, Hume's demand for a demonstrative argument misidentifies the logical status of the principle it seeks to justify.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.It is possible to conceive of the negation of the conclusion of an inductive inference
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the negation of a conclusion is conceivable, no demonstrative argument can establish that conclusion with certainty
      ?

      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.