Problems with late preemption

Analysis 58 (1):48–53 (1998)
Abstract
In response to counterexamples involving late preemption, David Lewis (1986) revised his original (1973) counterfactual analysis of causation to include the notion of quasi-dependence. Jonardon Ganeri, Paul Noordhof and Murali Ramachandran (1998) argue that their ‘PCA*-analysis’ of causation solves the problem of late preemption and is superior to Lewis’s analysis. I show that neither quasi-dependence nor the PCA*-analysis solves the problem of late preemption.
Keywords preemption  causation  Lewis  time  causal process  redundant
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/1467-8284.00101
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,798
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Dispositions And Mimickers.Sungho Choi - 2004 - Philosophical Studies 122 (2):183-188.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Trumping Preemption.Jonathan Schaffer - 2000 - Journal of Philosophy 97 (4):165-181.
Lewis's 'Causation as Influence'.I. Kvart - 2001 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (3):409 – 421.
Causation Without Influence.Tomasz Bigaj - 2012 - Erkenntnis 76 (1):1-22.
Causation and Preemption.Ned Hall & Laurie Ann Paul - 2003 - In Peter Clark & Katherine Hawley (eds.), Philosophy of Science Today. Oxford University Press.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
150 ( #32,756 of 2,200,741 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #61,798 of 2,200,741 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature