1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
A constant conjunction of cause and effect is something that can be observed. We can’t make an infinite number of observations and we can’t rerun the universe, hence the problem of induction and the problem of determinism being unprovable. But we can still understand what these words mean and we can observe that for practical purposes events are caused.
Comment by diogenesthehopeful at 31/08/2024 at 03:36 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yes we can understand what the words mean and constant constant conjunction doesn't imply contingency. Induction doesn't give us contingency. The contingency is inferred by the scientist. Therefore the contingency is logical instead of empirical. It is rational or logical. That is what the determinist cannot refute and is being either dishonest or fooled if he tries to argue causality is anything more than logical.
Inference is a **relation of ideas**. It is more of an argument than some empirical fact. However the laws of physics are the best we have and nobody believes "best" is flawless so there is always the possibility than the intererence is wrong but we can count of the fact that 2+2=4 Logic itself doesn't fail but the judgement is subject to a bunch of errors so the source of the misjudgment can very well be the mind. A person can drink too much alcohol and the fact that both eyeballs are out of sync can cause things to appear where they aren't. Perception isn't perfect.