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
    We have no rational grounds for assuming that the same se... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    We have no rational grounds for assuming that the same sensible qualities in bodies will always be conjoined with the same underlying powers.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity theory shows causal necessity is never observed, only constant conjunction of surface phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessity is absent from observation, no inference from sensible qualities to stable underlying powers can be rationally secured.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conceivability of any sensible quality existing without its customary power entails no logical contradiction, per Hume's Treatise I.iii.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke himself conceded in Essay II.xxxi that our nominal essences of substances never guarantee correspondence with real essences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without guaranteed correspondence between nominal and real essences, repeated sensible qualities provide no rational basis for inferring identical underlying powers across cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The powers by which bodies operate are entirely unknown to us.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We perceive only the sensible qualities of bodies, not their underlying causal powers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is no demonstrated reason why the same sensible qualities must always be paired with the same causal powers.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception1 linked

    Related

    Hume's regularity theory shows causal necessity is never observed, only constant...If necessity is absent from observation, no inference from sensible qualities to...Locke himself conceded in Essay II.xxxi that our nominal essences of substances ...The conceivability of any sensible quality existing without its customary power ...
    +4 moreShow less
    The powers by which bodies operate are entirely unknown to us.There is no demonstrated reason why the same sensible qualities must always be p...We perceive only the sensible qualities of bodies, not their underlying causal p...Without guaranteed correspondence between nominal and real essences, repeated se...

    Similar

    There is no demonstrated reason why the same sensible qualities must a...86%Accepting premise (i) implies that routinely conjoined sensible qualit...81%We perceive only the sensible qualities of bodies, not their underlyin...80%If the same hidden qualities always underlie the same combination of s...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: hume-newton
    View source passageHide passage
    We are determined by custom alone to suppose the future conformable to the past. When I see a billiard-ball moving towards another, my mind is immediately carry’d by habit to the usual effect, and anticipates my sight by conceiving the second ball in motion. There is nothing in these objects, abstractly considered, and independent of experience, which leads me to form any such conclusion: and even after I have had experience of many repeated effects of this kind, there is no argument, which dete
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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