Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (3):388-401 (2009)
|Abstract||One way of assessing the philosophical literature on causation is to consider views on the nature of the causal relation. Early theorists were 'monists', taking there to be one causal relation. More recent theorists, however, have turned to pluralism, which holds that the causal relation is only accurately captured by two (or more) relations. I argue that one way of being a pluralist – the way which takes there to be exactly two types of causation – is self defeating, if it promises to handle intuitions about all causal situations. I illustrate the point via neuron diagrams.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Frank Hofmann (2007). Causal Powers, Realization, and Mental Causation. Erkenntnis 67 (2):173 - 182.
Julian Reiss (2009). Causation in the Social Sciences: Evidence, Inference, and Purpose. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (1):20-40.
M. Gregory Oakes (2007). Can Indirect Causation Be Real? Metaphysica 8 (2):111-122.
D. Benjamin Barros (2013). Negative Causation in Causal and Mechanistic Explanation. Synthese 190 (3):449-469.
Kevin McCain (2012). The Interventionist Account of Causation and the Basing Relation. Philosophical Studies 159 (3):357-382.
Jaegwon Kim (1981). Causes as Explanations: A Critique. Theory and Decision 13 (4):293-309.
Ernest Sosa (ed.) (1975). Causation and Conditionals. Oxford University Press.
Thomas D. Bontly (2006). What is an Empirical Analysis of Causation? Synthese 151 (2):177 - 200.
Added to index2009-10-01
Total downloads17 ( #78,052 of 722,871 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?