Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (4):572-594 (2009)
|Abstract||The turn from deterministic to probabilistic explanations has been used to argue that social science does not explain human action in ways that are incompatible with free will, since, according to some accounts of probabilism, causal factors merely influence actions without determining them. I argue that the notion of nondetermining causal influence is a multifaceted and problematic idea, which notably is unclear about whether the probability is objective or subjective, whether it applies to individual occurrences or merely to sets of occurrences, and whether it is possible for an occurrence to be "almost determined."|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Patrick Maher (2002). Joyce's Argument for Probabilism. Philosophy of Science 69 (1):73-81.
D. Dieks (1988). Special Relativity and the Flow of Time. Philosophy of Science 55 (3):456-460.
Seumas Miller (2001). Social Action: A Teleological Account. Cambridge University Press.
C. Mantzavinos (2012). Explanations of Meaningful Actions. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (2):224-238.
Nicholas Maxwell (1985). Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Incompatible? Philosophy of Science 52 (1):23-43.
Mark Kaplan (2010). In Defense of Modest Probabilism. Synthese 176 (1):41 - 55.
Lina Eriksson & Alan Hájek (2007). What Are Degrees of Belief? Studia Logica 86 (2):185-215.
Maria Carla Galavotti (1996). Probabilism and Beyond. Erkenntnis 45 (2-3):253 - 265.
Lyle Zynda (2006). Radical Probabilism Revisited. Philosophy of Science 73 (5):969-980.
Nicholas Maxwell (1988). Are Probabilism and Special Relativity Compatible? Philosophy of Science 55 (4):640-645.
Added to index2009-11-11
Total downloads12 ( #101,164 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?