Authors
Robert Kowalenko
University of Witwatersrand
Abstract
According to manipulationist accounts of causal explanation, to explain an event is to show how it could be changed by intervening on its cause. The relevant change must be a ‘serious possibility’ claims Woodward 2003, distinct from mere logical or physical possibility—approximating something I call ‘scientific possibility’. This idea creates significant difficulties: background knowledge is necessary for judgments of possibili-ty. Yet the primary vehicles of explanation in manipulationism are ‘invariant’ generali-sations, and these are not well adapted to encoding such knowledge, especially in the social sciences, as some of it is non-causal. Ceteris paribus (CP) laws or generalisa-tions labour under no such difficulty. A survey of research methods such as case and comparative studies, randomised control trials, ethnography, and structural equation modeling, suggests that it would be more difficult and in some instances impossible to try to represent the output of each method in invariant generalisations; and that this is because in each method causal and non-causal background knowledge mesh in a way that cannot easily be accounted for in manipulationist terms. Ceteris paribus-generalisations being superior in this regard, a theory of explanation based on the latter is a better fit for social science.
Keywords Explanation  Manipulationism  Ceteris Paribus Law  Background Knowledge  Social Science Methodology  Case Study  Randomised Controlled Trial  Structural Equation Modelling  Causation
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2018
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1080/02698595.2018.1463693
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - University of Chicago Press.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas Samuel Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. Quine - 1951 - [Longmans, Green].
How the Laws of Physics Lie.Nancy Cartwright - 1983 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

View all 137 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Interventionism and Over-Time Causal Analysis in Social Sciences.Tung-Ying Wu - 2022 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 52 (1-2):3-24.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How the Ceteris Paribus Laws of Physics Lie.Geert Keil - 2005 - In Jan Faye, Paul Needham, Uwe Scheffler & Max Urchs (eds.), Nature's Principles. Springer. pp. 167-200.
Causal Equations Without Ceteris Paribus Clauses.Peter Gildenhuys - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (4):608-632.
Causation and Causal Relevance.Eric Hiddleston - 2001 - Dissertation, Cornell University
Ceteris Paribus Laws and Psychological Explanations.Charles Wallis - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:388-397.
Ceteris Paribus Laws.Stephen Schiffer - 1991 - Mind 100 (397):1-17.
Can Capacities Rescue Us From Cp Laws.Markus Schrenk - 2007 - In B. Gnassounou & M. Kistler (eds.), Dispositions in Philosophy and Science. Ashgate. pp. 221--247.
Anomalous Monism, Ceteris Paribus, and Psychological Explanation.Robert Klee - 1992 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (3):389-403.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-04-09

Total views
442 ( #21,094 of 2,498,778 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
40 ( #21,554 of 2,498,778 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes