In The Chances of Explanation, Paul Humphreys presents a metaphysical analysis of causation. In this paper, I argue that this analysis is flawed. Humphreys' model of Causality incorporates three completeness requirements. I show that these completeness requirements, when applied in the world, force us to take causally irrelevant factors to be causally relevant. On this basis, I argue that Humphreys' analysis should be rejected. Copyright 1996 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.
CITATION STYLE
DeVito, S. (1996). Completeness and indeterministic causation. Philosophy of Science, 63(3 SUPPL.). https://doi.org/10.1086/289950
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.