In this paper two accounts of Reichenbachian common cause systems are compared. Examples are provided which show that Hofer-Szabó and Rédei account and Hofer-Szabó et al. account is compatible, with but not equivalent, to Mazzola’s. Moreover, the difference of the two accounts with respect to their explanatory adequacy is discussed, in the light of Salmon’s statistical-relevance approach to statistical explanation.

The aim of the present paper is to explore whether seasonal outbreaks of infectious diseases may be linked to changes in host microbiomes. This is a very important issue, because one way to have more control over seasonal outbreaks is to understand the factors that underlie them. In this paper, I will evaluate the relevance of the microbiome as one of such factors. The paper is based on two pillars of reasoning. Firstly, on the idea that microbiomes play an important (...) role in their hosts’ defence against infectious diseases. Secondly, on the idea that microbiomes are not stable, but change seasonally. These two ideas are combined in order to argue that seasonal changes in a given microbiome may influence the functionality of the host's immune system and consequently make it easier for infectious agents to infect the host at certain times of year. I will argue that, while this is only a theoretical possibility, certain studies may back up such claims. Furthermore, I will show that this does not necessarily contradict other hypotheses aimed at explaining seasonal outbreaks; in fact, it may even enhance them. (shrink)

We distinguish two sub-types of each of the two causality principles formulated in connection with the Common Cause Principle in Henson and raise and investigate the problem of logical relations among the resulting four causality principles. Based in part on the analysis of the status of these four principles in algebraic quantum field theory we will argue that the four causal principles are non- equivalent.

We distinguish two sub-types of each of the two causality principles formulated in connection with the Common Cause Principle in Henson (2005) and raise and investigate the problem of logical relations among the resulting four causality principles. Based in part on the analysis of the status of these four principles in algebraic quantum field theory we will argue that the four causal principles are non-equivalent.

The principle of the common cause demands that every pair of causally independent but statistically correlated events should be the effect of a common cause. This demand is often supplemented with the requirement that said cause should screen-off the two events from each other. This paper introduces a new probabilistic model for common causes, which generalises this requirement to include sets of distinct but non-disjoint causes. It is demonstrated that the model hereby proposed satisfies the explanatory function generally attributed to (...) common causes and an existential proof is offered. Finally, the model is compared to other known structures intended to perform a similar function, such as Reichenbachian Common Cause Systems and Bayesian Networks. (shrink)

The principle of the common cause claims that if an improbable coincidence has occurred, there must exist a common cause. This is generally taken to mean that positive correlations between non-causally related events should disappear when conditioning on the action of some underlying common cause. The extended interpretation of the principle, by contrast, urges that common causes should be called for in order to explain positive deviations between the estimated correlation of two events and the expected value of their correlation. (...) The aim of this paper is to provide the extended reading of the principle with a general probabilistic model, capturing the simultaneous action of a system of multiple common causes. To this end, two distinct models are elaborated, and the necessary and sufficient conditions for their existence are determined. (shrink)

The principle of common cause asserts that positive correlations between causally unrelated events ought to be explained through the action of some shared causal factors. Reichenbachian common cause systems are probabilistic structures aimed at accounting for cases where correlations of the aforesaid sort cannot be explained through the action of a single common cause. The existence of Reichenbachian common cause systems of arbitrary finite size for each pair of non-causally correlated events was allegedly demonstrated by Hofer-Szabó and Rédei in 2006. (...) This paper shows that their proof is logically deficient, and we propose an improved proof. (shrink)

We give a few results concerning the notions of causal completability and causal closedness of classical probability spaces . We prove that any classical probability space has a causally closed extension; any finite classical probability space with positive rational probabilities on the atoms of the event algebra can be extended to a causally up-to-three-closed finite space; and any classical probability space can be extended to a space in which all correlations between events that are logically independent modulo measure zero event (...) have a countably infinite common-cause system. Collectively, these results show that it is surprisingly easy to find Reichenbach-style ‘explanations' for correlations, underlining doubts as to whether this approach can yield a philosophically relevant account of causality. 1 Introduction2 Basic Definitions and Results in the Literature3 Causal Completability the Easy Way: ‘Splitting the Atom’4 Causal Completability of Classical Probability Spaces: The General Case5 Infinite Statistical Common-Cause Systems for Arbitrary Pairs6 ConclusionAppendix A. (shrink)

In this contribution, I comment on Raffaella Campaner’s defense of explanatory pluralism in psychiatry (in this volume). In her paper, Campaner focuses primarily on explanatory pluralism in contrast to explanatory reductionism. Furthermore, she distinguishes between pluralists who consider pluralism to be a temporary state on the one hand and pluralists who consider it to be a persisting state on the other hand. I suggest that it would be helpful to distinguish more than those two versions of pluralism – different understandings (...) of explanatory pluralism both within philosophy of science and psychiatry – namely moderate/temporary pluralism, anything goes pluralism, isolationist pluralism, integrative pluralism and interactive pluralism. Next, I discuss the pros and cons of these different understandings of explanatory pluralism. Finally, I raise the question of how to implement or operationalize explanatory pluralism in scientific practice; how to structure the “genuine dialogue” or shape “the pluralistic attitude” Campaner is referring to. As tentative answers, I explore a question-based framework for explanatory pluralism as well as social-epistemological procedures for interaction among competing approaches and explanations. (shrink)