From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 20:05:16 MST
Quoting David Hume's position, as paraphrased at the URL posted by, (I
think), Jef...
> Now let's look at how we arrive at the claim: A causes B.
> 1. We notice that events of type A are followed by events of type B.
> 2. We notice that this happens every time we find an event of type A,
we also find
> an event of type B.
> 3. We notice that A always occurs before the B event.
> 4. We also notice that if we find an event of type B, we find an
earlier occurrence of a type
> A event.
This is a much stronger position than that which you have so far
advocated, Lee, and it is one with which I cannot find fault.
Contrary to the thread title, condition #3 is not, according to Hume,
sufficient reason to accept a claim of causality.
Hume also requires, (and as I require, as I argued in a previous post of
mine here),
conditions #2 and #4. (Condition #1 seems redundant to me.)
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:16 MST