In defense of causal eliminativism

Synthese 200 (5):1-22 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Causal eliminativists maintain that all causal talk is false. The prospects for such a view seem to be stymied by an indispensability argument, charging that any agent must distinguish between effective and ineffective strategies, and that such a distinction must commit that agent to causal notions. However, this argument has been under-explored. The contributions of this paper are twofold: first, I provide a thorough explication of the indispensability argument and the various ways it might be defended. Second, I point to an important limitation in the argument and suggest that it does not give us sufficient reason to reject eliminativism. In support of this last claim, I show that the distinction between effective and ineffective strategies could perfectly well be grounded in a counterfactual rather than a causal decision theory and argue that there are fully adequate explanations of how we could come to make the requisite counterfactual judgments that need not invoke causal concepts.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

An unstable eliminativism.John W. Carroll & William R. Carter - 2005 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1):1–17.
Causal Closure, Causal Exclusion, and Supervenience Physicalism.Kevin Morris - 2014 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95 (1):72-86.
Hume’s Defence of Causal Inference. [REVIEW]Raymond Woller - 1999 - Review of Metaphysics 52 (4):988-989.
Physics and Causation.Thomas Blanchard - 2016 - Philosophy Compass 11 (5):256-266.
In Defense of Causal Presentism.Veli Virmajoki - 2022 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 12 (1):68-96.
Causal Processes and Causal Interactions.Douglas Ehring - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:24 - 32.
Abstract versus Causal Explanations?Reutlinger Alexander & Andersen Holly - 2016 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 30 (2):129-146.
A Defense of Causal Invariantism.Martin Montminy & Andrew Russo - 2016 - Analytic Philosophy 57 (1):49-75.


Added to PP

165 (#113,330)

6 months
30 (#103,601)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Time and chance.David Z. Albert - 2000 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 36 (3):602-605.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Foundations of Language 13 (1):145-151.

View all 61 references / Add more references