What is your answer?
According to Ayer, a general proposition of the form "C causes E"
{ 1 } - asserts an unobservable necessary connection between C (the cause) and E (the effect).
{ 2 } - is known a priori (independently of sense experience).
{ 3 } - means "Whenever C happens, E also happens" (where this covers, not just the actual instances of C, but an infinite number of possible instances of C).
{ 4 } - is meaningless.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
According to Ayer, a general proposition of the form "C causes E"
{ 1 } - asserts an unobservable necessary connection between C (the cause) and E (the effect).
{ 2 } - is known a priori (independently of sense experience).
{ 3 } - means "Whenever C happens, E also happens" (where this covers, not just the actual instances of C, but an infinite number of possible instances of C).
{ 4 } - is meaningless.
Ayer would reject this as metaphysical nonsense.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
According to Ayer, a general proposition of the form "C causes E"
{ 1 } - asserts an unobservable necessary connection between C (the cause) and E (the effect).
{ 2 } - is known a priori (independently of sense experience).
{ 3 } - means "Whenever C happens, E also happens" (where this covers, not just the actual instances of C, but an infinite number of possible instances of C).
{ 4 } - is meaningless.
Ayer thought that we had no knowledge of the world apart from sense experience.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
According to Ayer, a general proposition of the form "C causes E"
{ 1 } - asserts an unobservable necessary connection between C (the cause) and E (the effect).
{ 2 } - is known a priori (independently of sense experience).
{ 3 } - means "Whenever C happens, E also happens" (where this covers, not just the actual instances of C, but an infinite number of possible instances of C).
{ 4 } - is meaningless.
So "Heating ice causes the melting of the ice" means "Whenever ice is heated it melts." This is roughly the same as Hume's analysis.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
4 is wrong. Please try again.
According to Ayer, a general proposition of the form "C causes E"
{ 1 } - asserts an unobservable necessary connection between C (the cause) and E (the effect).
{ 2 } - is known a priori (independently of sense experience).
{ 3 } - means "Whenever C happens, E also happens" (where this covers, not just the actual instances of C, but an infinite number of possible instances of C).
{ 4 } - is meaningless.
Ayer saw such propositions as empirical, and hence as meaningful.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end