Minds and Machines 16 (3) (2006)
|Abstract||I put forward several desiderata that a philosophical theory of causality should satisfy: it should account for the objectivity of causality, it should underpin formalisms for causal reasoning, it should admit a viable epistemology, it should be able to cope with the great variety of causal claims that are made, and it should be ontologically parsimonious. I argue that Nancy Cartwright’s dispositional account of causality goes part way towards meeting these criteria but is lacking in important respects. I go on to argue that my epistemic account, which ties causal relationships to an agent’s knowledge and ignorance, performs well in the light of the desiderata. Such an account, I claim, is all we require from a theory of causality.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Charles R. Twardy & Kevin B. Korb (2004). A Criterion of Probabilistic Causation. Philosophy of Science 71 (3):241-262.
Jon Williamson (2011). Generic Versus Single-Case Causality: The Case of Autopsy. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):47-69.
Paul Bohan Broderick (2006). Dispositional Versus Epistemic Causality. Minds and Machines 16 (3).
Stefan Dragulinescu (2012). On 'Stabilising' Medical Mechanisms, Truth-Makers and Epistemic Causality: A Critique to Williamson and Russo's Approach. Synthese 187 (2):785-800.
Jon Williamson (2006). Causal Pluralism Versus Epistemic Causality. Philosophica 77.
Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2007). Interpreting Causality in the Health Sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2):157 – 170.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #75,695 of 556,888 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #27,428 of 556,888 )
How can I increase my downloads?