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 valid logical foundation for inductive inferences drawn from experience.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All causal claims require experience, understood as the observation of constant conjunctions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inductive conclusions infer what has not yet been observed from what has already been observed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is an unbridgeable logical gap between a premise summarizing past observations and a conclusion about the as-yet unobserved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any principle used to justify induction (e.g., 'nature is uniform') must itself be established either a priori or inductively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It cannot be established a priori, as its negation is conceivable; established inductively, it renders the justification viciously circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, no non-circular logical foundation for inductive inference is available, as Hume demonstrated in Treatise I.iii.6.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Popper showed that no finite set of confirming observations entails a universal law, since any such law makes claims about infinitely many cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Probabilistic or Bayesian reformulations of induction presuppose a prior probability distribution whose own justification cannot be grounded in logic alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thus even probabilistic inductive frameworks smuggle in non-logical assumptions, leaving the logical gap Hume identified structurally intact.
      ?

      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.