From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 09:23:12 MST
Jef writes (thanks for the URL)
> > 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
which contains
"5. Therefore, he concludes that A causes B means that A and B are constantly conjoined in our experience and A is earlier than B.
This is called the constant conjunction analysis of causation. It contains no necessity beyond some felt expectation that whenever
we see A we will find B."
Oh, my guess was right. Worse, the J.C. point is already
known as "the constant conjunction analysis of causation".
So Hume beat John Clark to it by over two hundred years.
Alas, there is nothing new under the sun.
"And this argument can be generalized to show that none of our so-called necessary truths of science are actually necessary. All of
them in fact amount only to a claim that so-far, we have always seen ABs or A and B conjoined or .... But to support induction as a
source of experiential knowledge, we need a necessity in our major premises: A causes B, All As are Bs, &c. Absent this, there is no
knowledge."
I think that this is the problem of induction, allegedly solved by Popper.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:17 MST