From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 18:57:51 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Jef writes
>
>> Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>> Well, then I (now) would say that if A *always* comes
>>> before B, what right to we have to say that A is not
>>> the cause of B? ("Always" is a powerful adverb.)
>>
>> Well, it seems to me that if we try to go by that logic we will have
>> to admit that we never have enough data to know what *always* will
>> happen.
>
> The same point was made by David Hume.
>
>> The universe has been known to throw in a wild card time and again.
>> That is the problem with a certain class of inductive argument when
>> trying to prove an absolute.
>
> Yes, all the J.C. claim is is that by "A causes B" we
> mean and we only mean that A always comes before B.
I see. Makes sense.
Found this web page that summarizes it quite well.
http://www.hum.utah.edu/~phanna/classes/phil1010/kantsummary/node5.html
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:16 MST