Greg Detre
@11.30 Thursday, 15 February, 2001
Lucy Allais
necessary connection = > coincidence, = production/power/efficacy
how can you be an empiricist???
there�s only analytic a priori knowledge
knowledge about the world can�t be justified independent of experience of the world
but there�s still processing going on to your experience
if that processing happens without knowledge claims on the world�
can we turn reason to experience to learn about the structure of reality???
constant conjunction vs necessary connection???
NC can�t be derived from experience = a fiction of the imagination from CC
contiguity vs gravity??? gravity as a curvature of spacetime, vs motion in freefall??? where�s the cause???
if ideas = sensory, = concepts
G Strawson�s interpretive q
whether Hume is making an ontological or epistemological claim
vs: all there is in the world is CC
all we have knowledge of is regularity
����� support for claim being epistemological from Hume�s theory of ideas
by causation, all we can mean is regularity
we can�t coherently conceive of NC
all we ever mean by NC is regularity
our concept of cause can�t really have cause from experience
unless it came from introspection into reason on NC � ???
all there is in the world is regularity � there�s no NC in the world
epistemology: all we know about causation is regularity
though there could be NC in the world, we�ll never know it
could be anything in the world
ontological claim: does not fit in with the rest of Hume�s scepticism
how can we make this claim about the world???
places faith in the senses as direct access to the way things are
Strawson argues that Hume is not making the ontological claim
difference between causation + regularity ontologically???
it�s not just laws, or certainty
it�s that there�s something about A that makes it the case that B must follow � NC
is it to do with moving through time???
makes no sense to think of NC except within a framework of nature???
so omniscient being would still only see complete regularity
so unless you ARE the First Mover, you cannot know anything �???
how do we learn the concept of cause???
innate in each of us, acquired evolutionarily
analytically reduce causation � regularity???
what about FW and counterfactuals???
ontology vs knowledge claims for regularity vs causation???
G Strawson on why causation can�t just be regularity� - �Realism + Causation�
PF Strawson � we perceive causation iun the world, e.g. pushes + pulls
Collingwood, �Essay on metaphysics� � experience of cause = derived from own experience
what�s the difference between chain of contiguous events and secret powers???
causation tute vs induction tute???
if admit predispositions, then �� empiricist pure associationism???
what is coherentist truth???
could our concept of cause have come from introspection into reason on NC � ???
jigsaw pieces, snooker balls � as examples of where we can even imagine NC??? kind of like primary qualities???
makes no sense to think of NC except within a framework of nature??? so omniscient being would still only see complete regularity, so unless you ARE the First Mover, you cannot know anything �???
how do FW and counterfactuals affect our discussion of causation???
Theories of Ideas
Hegel
Ralph Walker on Kant (transcendental idealism)
Strawson � Bounds of sense
Scruton???
CoPR
Copplestone � HoWP � summary of idealism
Sebastian Gardner � Routledge Guidebook