Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
We argue that current discussions of criteria for actual causation are ill-posed in several respects. (1) The methodology
of current discussions is by induction from intuitions about an infinitesimal fraction of the possible examples and counterexamples;
(2) cases with larger numbers of causes generate novel puzzles; (3) “neuron” and causal Bayes net diagrams are, as deployed
in discussions of actual causation, almost always ambiguous; (4) actual causation is (intuitively) relative to an initial
system state since state changes are relevant, but most current accounts ignore state changes through time; (5) more generally,
there is no reason to think that philosophical judgements about these sorts of cases are normative; but (6) there is a dearth
of relevant psychological research that bears on whether various philosophical accounts are descriptive. Our skepticism is
not directed towards the possibility of a correct account of actual causation; rather, we argue that standard methods will
not lead to such an account. A different approach is required.
Once upon a time a hungry wanderer came into a village. He filled an iron cauldron
with water, built a fire under it, and dropped a stone into the water. “I do like a tasty stone soup” he announced. Soon a
villager added a cabbage to the pot, another added some salt and others added potatoes, onions, carrots, mushrooms, and so
on, until there was a meal for all. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2010 | 10.1007/s11229-009-9497-9 | Synthese |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
Actual causation,Bayesian networks,Combinatorics,Intervention,Intuitions | Probabilistic causation,Normative,Causation,Philosophy of science,Metaphysics,Philosophy of language,Skepticism,Philosophy,Artificial intelligence,Epistemology,Infinitesimal | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
175 | 2 | 0039-7857 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
6 | 1.17 | 2 |
Authors | ||
9 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Clark Glymour | 1 | 468 | 82.20 |
david danks | 2 | 33 | 10.69 |
Bruce Glymour | 3 | 8 | 1.53 |
Frederick Eberhardt | 4 | 157 | 17.31 |
Joseph D. Ramsey | 5 | 567 | 33.56 |
Richard Scheines | 6 | 256 | 37.19 |
Peter Spirtes | 7 | 616 | 101.07 |
Choh Man Teng | 8 | 66 | 11.27 |
Jiji Zhang | 9 | 149 | 17.52 |