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 must be particular causal laws relating preceding events of type A to succeeding events of type B, which are themselves strictly universal and necessary.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantum mechanics shows that radioactive decay and other fundamental physical processes are irreducibly probabilistic, with no preceding event type that strictly necessitates the succeeding event.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nancy Cartwright argues that even classical physics involves ceteris paribus laws holding only in idealized conditions, not strictly universal laws governing event types.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If our best scientific theories describe causal regularities that are probabilistic or heavily qualified, then strict universality and necessity are not required features of particular causal laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume demonstrated that constant conjunction between event types is all that observation ever establishes; necessity is projected by the mind, not discovered in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessity in causal laws is a psychological habit rather than an objective feature of reality, then strictly universal necessary laws cannot be required to ground particular causal relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The general causal principle holds that every event must have a cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the general causal principle is true, then particular causal laws must also exist to ground it.
      ?

      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.