Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 71 (5):805-819 (2004)
|Abstract||We currently have on offer a variety of different theories of causation. Many are strikingly good, providing detailed and plausible treatments of exemplary cases; and all suffer from clear counterexamples. I argue that, contra Hume and Kant, this is because causation is not a single, monolithic concept. There are different kinds of causal relations imbedded in different kinds of systems, readily described using thick causal concepts. Our causal theories pick out important and useful structures that fit some familiar cases—cases we discover and ones we devise to fit.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alyssa Ney (2009). Physical Causation and Difference-Making. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):737-764.
Justin T. Tiehen (2011). Disproportional Mental Causation. Synthese 182 (3):375-391.
Charles B. Cross (1992). Counterfactuals and Event Causation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 70 (3):307 – 323.
Daniel Murray Hausman (2005). Causal Relata: Tokens, Types, or Variables? [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 63 (1):33 - 54.
Johannes Persson (1999). The Determinables of Explanatory Mechanisms. Synthese 120 (1):77-87.
Helen Beebee (2006). Hume on Causation. Routledge.
Ned Hall (2004). Rescued From the Rubbish Bin: Lewis on Causation. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1107-1114.
Gunnar Björnsson (2007). How Effects Depend on Their Causes, Why Causal Transitivity Fails, and Why We Care About Causation. Philosophical Studies 133 (3):349 - 390.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads148 ( #3,489 of 738,054 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,232 of 738,054 )
How can I increase my downloads?