Online research in philosophy

Decision making typically requires judgements about causal relations: we need to know both the causal e¤ects of our actions and the causal relevance of various environmental factors. Judgements about the nature and strength of causal rela- tions often di¤er, even among experts. How to handle such diversity is the topic of this paper. First we consider the possibility of aggregating causal judgements via the aggregation of probabilistic ones. The broadly negative outcome of this investigation leads us to look at aggregating causal judgements independently of probabilistic ones. We do so by transcribing causal claims into the judgement aggregation framework and applying some recent results in this …eld. Finally we look at the implications for probability aggregation when it is constrained by prior aggregation of causal judgements.

Decision making typically requires judgements about causal relations: we need to know both the causal e¤ects of our actions and the causal relevance of various environmental factors. Judgements about the nature and strength of causal relations often di¤er, even among experts. How to handle such diversity is the topic of this paper. First we consider the possibility of aggregating causal judgements via the aggregation of probabilistic ones. The broadly negative outcome of this investigation leads us to look at aggregating causal judgements independently of probabilistic ones. We do so by transcribing causal claims into the judgement aggregation framework and applying some recent results in this …eld. Finally we look at the implications for probability aggregation when it is constrained by prior aggregation of causal judgements.

I defend my attempt to explain causal priority by means of one-way causal conditionship by answering an argument by J. A. Cover about Charles'' law. Then I attempt to say what makes a philosophical analysis a counterfactual analysis, so I can understand Cover''s claim that my account is at its base a counterfactual one. Finally I examine Cover''s discussion of my contention that necessary for in the circumstances is nontransitive.

The invariance under interventions –account of causal explanation imposes a modularity constraint on causal systems: a local intervention on a part of the system should not change other causal relations in that system. This constraint has generated criticism against the account, since many ordinary causal systems seem to break this condition. This paper answers to this criticism by noting that explanatory models are always models of specific causal structures, not causal systems as a whole, and that models of causal structures can have different modularity properties which determine what can and what cannot be explained with the model.

Wesley Salmon has developed a theory of causation which makes use of the concepts of a "causal process" and a "causal interaction." Roughly, a causal process is a process which transmits its own structure, and a causal interaction is an intersection of processes which transforms the character of these processes. The cause-effect relation is analyzed as a causal interaction followed by a causal process which terminates in a further causal interaction. In this paper I present a series of problem cases which run "counter" to Salmon's account.

In "Causes and "If P, Even If X, still Q," Philosophy 57 (July 1982), Ted Honderich cites my "The Direction of Causation and the Direction of Conditionship," journal of Philosophy 73 (April 22, 1976) as an example of an account of causal priority that lacks the proper character. After emending Honderich's description of the proper character, I argue that my attempt to account for one-way causation in terms of one-way causal conditionship does not totally lack it. Rather than emphasize the singularity of an effect, as Honderich does, I emphasize the multiplicity of independent factors in a causal circumstance.

Temporal analyses of causal directionality fail if causes needn't precede their effects. Certain well-known difficulties with alternative (non-temporal) analyses have, in recent accounts, been avoided by attending more carefully to the formal features of relations typically figuring in philosophical discussions of causation. I discuss here a representative of such accounts, offered by David Sanford, according to which a correct analysis of causal priority must issue from viewing the condition relation as nonsymmetrical. The theory is shown first to be an implicitly counterfactual treatment at its base: this provides for an explicit reformulation of several key notions in the theory. An argument is then presented, independent of these modal considerations, for the conclusion that causal priority is possible only given certain implausible assumptions about the asymmetric character of causal laws which, I claim, are not met. The best objection to this argument is shown to fail on several counts, partly in light of the counterfactual results offered earlier. It is concluded that, if laws are symmetric, analyses of the sort discussed must look elsewhere for the source of causal priority; but if laws are not symmetric, resting causal priority so heavily on nomological asymmetry is no analysis at all.

I criticize and emend J L Mackie's account of causal priority by replacing ‘fixity’ in its central clause by 'x is a causal condition of y, but y is not a causal condition of x'. This replacement works only if 'is a causal condition of' is not a symmetric relation. Even apart from our desire to account for causal priority, it is desirable to have an account of nonsymmetric conditionship. Truth, for example, is a condition of knowledge, but knowledge is not a condition of truth. My definitions of 'sufficient condition for' and 'necessary condition for' do not imply that p is a sufficient condition of q if and only if q is a necessary condition of p.