British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (1):115-143 (2012)
|Abstract||For at least three decades, philosophers have argued that general causation and causal explanation are contrastive in nature. When we seek a causal explanation of some particular event, we are usually interested in knowing why that event happened rather than some other specified event. And general causal claims, which state that certain event types cause certain other event types, seem to make sense only if appropriate contrasts to the types of events acting as cause and effect are specified. In recent years, philosophers have extended the contrastive theory of causation to encompass singular causation as well. In this article, I argue that this extension of the theory was a mistake. Although general causation and causal explanation may well be contrastive in nature, singular causation is not|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Dominick A. Rizzi & Stig Andur Pedersen (1992). Causality in Medicine: Towards a Theory and Terminology. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (3).
Uwe Meixner (2004). Causation in a New Old Key. Studia Logica 76 (3):343 - 383.
Peter Menzies (1989). Probabilistic Causation and Causal Processes: A Critique of Lewis. Philosophy of Science 56 (4):642-663.
Christopher Read Hitchcock (1996). The Role of Contrast in Causal and Explanatory Claims. Synthese 107 (3):395 - 419.
Peter Menzies, Counterfactual Theories of Causation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
D. Benjamin Barros (2013). Negative Causation in Causal and Mechanistic Explanation. Synthese 190 (3):449-469.
Christian Jakob (2006). Hitchcock's (2001) Treatment of Singular and General Causation. Minds and Machines 16 (3).
Jonathan Schaffer (2005). Contrastive Causation. Philosophical Review 114 (3):327-358.
Added to index2010-06-01
Total downloads89 ( #7,919 of 549,196 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,196 )
How can I increase my downloads?