Mackie admitted that science presupposes the principle of sufficient reason (which we formulated as "For every positive contingent truth, something explains why it's true").
Mackie admitted that science presupposes the principle of sufficient reason (which we formulated as "For every positive contingent truth, something explains why it's true").
Science presupposes only the weaker principle that every event has a previous cause. Science is content to explain events by previous events, and these events by previous ones, and so on. Science demands, not that there be an ultimate explanation of the world, but only that each specific fact be explainable in terms of previous facts. Mackie thinks we should be satisfied with this kind of explanation.
Mackie has doubts even about the weaker principle that every event has a previous cause. This too may be only an arbitrary demand of our minds (instead of an objective truth about reality). We can imagine events with no previous cause -- and we can't prove that such things never happen.
Mackie admitted that science presupposes the principle of sufficient reason (which we formulated as "For every positive contingent truth, something explains why it's true").
Science presupposes only the weaker principle that every event has a previous cause. Science is content to explain events by previous events, and these events by previous ones, and so on. Science demands, not that there be an ultimate explanation of the world, but only that each specific fact be explainable in terms of previous facts. Mackie thinks we should be satisfied with this kind of explanation.
Mackie has doubts even about the weaker principle that every event has a previous cause. This too may be only an arbitrary demand of our minds (instead of an objective truth about reality). We can imagine events with no previous cause -- and we can't prove that such things never happen.