Causation, Miscellaneous

Este trabajo discute varias formulaciones diferentes del principio de causalidad considerando la función que tales principios pueden cumplir en argumentos cosmológicos. Se argumenta que el principio se comprende mejor como requiriendo una causa para todos los estados de cosas contingentes, en vez de requiriendo una explicación para todas las proposiciones verdaderas contingentes. Se argumenta, también, que el requerimiento de una causa para un estado de cosas no debe ser visto como el requerimiento de algo que hace necesaria la ocurrencia del (...) efecto. Varias dificultades bien conocidas pueden ser evitadas con causas que no hacen necesarias sus producciones. Se argumenta, luego, que en las teorías combinatorias de la modalidad, donde todo puede existir con o sin cualquier otro existente diferente, las formulaciones fuertes del principio de causalidad parecen falsas, pero las formulaciones débiles, donde sólo se postula una causa posible para todo estado de cosas, parecen verdaderas. Por otro lado, tanto las formulaciones fuertes como las débiles parecen verdaderas en las concepciones causales de la modalidad. Sin embargo, en las teorías causales de la modalidad la fase II del argumento cosmológico resulta mucho más difícil, esto es, parece mucho más complicado justificar que el objeto concreto necesario al que se hace referencia es omnisciente, omnipotente y moralmente perfecto. This work discusses several different formulations of the principle of causality considering the function that those principles might play in cosmological arguments. It is argued that the principle is best understood as requiring a cause for all contingent states of affairs, instead of as requiring an explanation for all contingent true propositions. It is also argued that the requirement of a cause for a state of affairs should not be seen as the requirement for something that necessitates the effect. Several well-known difficulties haunting the principle can be avoided with non-necessitating causes. It is then argued that in combinatorial theories of modality, where everything can exist with or without any other different existent, the strong formulations of the principle of causality seem false, but the weak formulations, where only a possible cause for every contingent state of affairs is postulated, seem true. On the other hand, both strong and weak formulations of the principle seem true on the causal conceptions of modality. Nevertheless, in causal theories of modality phase II of the cosmological argument turns out to be much more difficult, i. e., it seems much harder to justify that the necessary concrete object referred to is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect. (shrink)

The official explanations the US gave for the September 11th terrorist attacks are not in fact explanatory, and there has been popular condemnation of those who attempt to offer causal explanations for the attacks. This paper is an investigation of the difficulty people have with finding and accepting explanations for acts they strongly condemn. Using research in the philosophy of mind and moral psychology, I distinguish between explanations for actual immoral behavior and explanations for fictional immoral behavior. The difficulty with (...) accepting the existence of an explanation for an immoral action is based on the difficulty we have identifying with the immoral person. Fiction gives us the narrative required to engage in this imagination, and thus facilitates the construction of explanations. I conclude that rather than being immoral to construct an explanation for the terrorist attacks, it is the first step toward fighting terrorism. (shrink)

Evidence based medicine (EBM) is under critical debate, and person centered healthcare (PCH) has been proposed as an improvement. But is PCH offered as a supplement or as a replacement of EBM? Prima facie PCH only concerns the practice of medicine, while the contended features of EBM also include methods and medical model. I here argue that there are good philosophical reasons to see PCH as a radical alternative to the existing medical paradigm of EBM, since the two seem committed (...) to conflicting ontologies. This paper aims to make explicit some of the most fundamental assumptions that motivate EBM and PCH, respectively, in order to show that the choice between them ultimately comes down to ontological preference. While EBM has a solid foundation in positivism, or what I here call Humeanism, PCH is more consistent with causal dispositionalism. I conclude that if there is a paradigmatic revolution on the way in medicine, it is first of all one of ontology. (shrink)

I IT is often declared or evidently assumed that causality is some kind of necessary connexion, or alternatively, that being caused is — non-trivially ...

Resumo Este artigo centra-se na relevância metodológica da causalidade de tipo top-down. É fornecida uma análise do alcance e dos limites da metodologia reducionista tradicional. São distinguidos cinco tipos de concepções reducionistas: um requisito metodológico geral, o conselho pragmático de se seguir metodologias bem estabelecidas, um reducionismo inter-teórico, uma forma intra-teórica e, finalmente, um reducionismo ontológico. Subsequentemente, salienta-se a existência de domínios onde uma abordagem diferente, mas complementar, centrada em explicações etiológicas de tipo top-down, pode ser útil para melhorar o (...) nosso conhecimento dos organismos. Também é evidenciado que a causalidade de tipo top-down não pode ser separada de mecanismos de controle exibindo, numa estrutura biológica, a capacidade básica da homeostase. Palavras-chave : causalidade de tipo top-down, controlo de informação, explicação etiológica, explicação genética, reducionismoThis paper focuses on the methodological relevance of top-down causation. An analysis of the scope and limits of the traditional reductionist methodology is provided. Five kinds of reductionist conceptions are distinguished: a general methodological requirement, the pragmatic advice to follow well-established methodologies, an inter-theoretic reductionism, an intra-theoretic form and finally an ontological reductionism. Thereafter, it is pointed out that there are domains where a different but complementary approach centred on top-down etiological explanations could be helpful for improving our knowledge of organisms. It is also shown that top-down causation cannot be separated from control-mechanisms displaying, in a biological framework, the basic ability to keep homeostasis. Keywords : etiological explanation, genetical explanation, information control, reductionism, top-down causation. (shrink)

In "The Comparative Method" Ragin (1987) has outlined a procedure of Boolean causal reasoning operating on pure coincidence data that has meanwhile become widely known as QCA (Qualitative Comparative Analysis) among social scientists. QCA -- also in its recent form as presented in Ragin (2000) -- is designed to analyze causal structures featuring one effect and a possibly complex configuration of mutually independent direct causes of that effect. The paper at hand presents a procedure of causal reasoning that operates on (...) the same type of empirical data as QCA and that implements Boolean techniques related to the ones resorted to by QCA, yet, in contrast to QCA, the procedure introduced here successfully identifies causal structures involving both mutually dependent causes, i.e. causal chains, and multiple effects, i.e. epiphenomena. In this sense, the paper at hand generalizes QCA. (shrink)

I argue that much of current concern with the role of causality and strong emergence in natural processes is based upon an unreasonable expectation placed on our ability to formalize scientific knowledge. In most disciplines our formalization ability is an expectation rather than a scientific result. This calls for an empirical approach to the study of causation and emergence. Finally, I suggest that for advances in complexity research to occur, attention needs to be paid to understanding what role computation plays (...) in this experimental approach. (shrink)

In 'on the analysis of causation' ("synthese", Volume 21, 1970), We argued that any analysis of causation entailing that "a" caused "b" only if "a" is the set of conditions necessary and sufficient for "b" yields a formal contradiction. In 'causal necessity and logical necessity' ("philosophical studies", Volume 28, 1975), David sanford objects to that argument, Concentrating his attack on the notions of causal necessity and total sets of antecedent conditions. We reply in this paper that, Although sanford's objections help (...) clarify the issues, They are not telling. (shrink)

Within that portion of philosophy of science concerned with the nature of scientific explanation, has emerged a fundamental disagreement about the nature of explanatory relevance as a primary source of explanatory power. And while everyone agrees that being relevant within an explanation requires that the explaining fact have something to do with the fact to be explained, there is little agreement about what this means. As the debate about the nature of explanation has developed within different metaphysical frameworks, various answers (...) to the "what is explanatory relevance?" question have been offered. Hempel and Oppenheim's D-N and I-S accounts, for example, construed relevance as a function of being an instance of a law appearing as part of an explanans. Wesley Salmon's objections to this account of scientific explanation would require that relevance be located within the objective causal nexus underlying the events to be explained. Still other theorists analyze relevance epistemically, in terms of an answer's responsiveness to a question asked. But as Salmon and others rightly point out, such analyses are fraught with difficulty--none of these epistemic analyses appear able to provide adequate criteria for an answer's correctness . In order to get a clear view of the problems of relevance within an epistemic/erotetic account, I present two of the leading erotetic models--one semantic, the other speech-act theoretic. I then distill the most pointed realist objections against them and show how both suffer from the same structural difficulty. As a way toward acquiring a fresh perspective, I then present a third erotetic account and argue that its conceptions of 'problem-situations' and explanatory requests suggest a line of analysis previously unexplored. I proceed to show that an inquirer's status as epistemically dependent, her question as a request for help, and her need to trust her interlocutor, all suggest that recasting the problems of relevance into moral terms may resolve these difficulties as they are epistemically conceived. Finally, I argue that a respondent's trustworthiness is capable of underwriting the necessary epistemic claims, and proceed to develop a set of criteria according to which one may qualify as trustworthy to explain. I conclude by showing how a respondent's trustworthiness addresses the difficulties present within each of the three erotetic accounts examined, and argue that this result suggests that trustworthiness is fundamental to an erotetic conception of explanation. (shrink)

Written in 2002/2003 while I was a graduate student at the University of Connecticut and ultimately submitted as part of my qualifying exam for the Master Degree in philosophy. I argue that the causal relation is observable even if the necessity of the connection is not. This version (the only one that remains) was prepared for presentation at the New Jersey Regional Philosophy Association.

The paper revisits the old controversy over causality and determinism and argues, in the first place, that non˗deterministic theories of modern science are largely irrelevant to the philosophical issue of the causality principle. As it seems to be the ‘moral’ of the uncertainty principle, the reason why a deterministic theory cannot be applied to the description of certain physical systems is that it is impossible to capture such properties of the system, which are required by a desired theory. These properties (...) constitute what is called ‘the state’ of a system. However, the notion of a state of a system is relative: it depends on a particular theory which one would like to use to describe given kinds of phenomena. This implies that, even in the case where the desired state of a system is fundamentally impossible to be captured, neither ontological nor epistemological determinism may be excluded. Some following critical considerations are also offered with regard to the claim that uncertainty is “rooted in the things themselves”. The cradle of modern discussions about causality and determinism is, of course, quantum mechanics. Because, as it appears, a judgment on deterministic or non˗deterministic character of a theory can be made only after some interpretation of this theory has been given, the paper briefly reminds some chosen interpretations of quantum mechanics (Schrödinger's, probabilistic, statistical, Copenhagen, and the interpretation of quantum ensembles). Many of such interpretations, offered in the past, have now been rejected, and some gained more credibility than the others. Nonetheless, even the claim that indeterminism is irremovable from the description of the micro-world doesn't imply the rejection of the most general formula of the philosophical causality principle. There is no direct implication between theses of the epistemology of scientific knowledge and those of the ontology of the real world. (shrink)

This contribution claims that the two fundamental notions of causation at work in the health sciences are manipulative and mechanistic, and investigates what kinds of evidence matter for the assessment of causal relations. This article is a development of our 2007 article, ?Plurality of Causality?, where we argue for a pluralistic account of causation with an eye to econometrics and a single medical example. The present contribution has a wider focus, and considers the notion of evidence within a whole range (...) of disciplines belonging to the health sciences. Section 1 addresses the relations between kinds of evidence and causal accounts, and it is shown how different notions of causation can be employed in various medical cases. Section 2 calls attention to issues crucial for any adequate epistemological theory of causation, such as the distinctions between types and tokens, observational and experimental regimes, explanation and prediction. Lastly, the notion of context is articulated, highlighted in its role in the assessment of causal links. All these issues are tackled in the framework of what we label a ?bottom?up? epistemology. (shrink)

Recently, it has been argued that the use of Big Data transforms the sciences, making data-driven research possible and studying causality redundant. In this paper, I focus on the claim on causal knowledge by examining the Big Data project EXPOsOMICS, whose research is funded by the European Commission and considered capable of improving our understanding of the relation between exposure and disease. While EXPOsOMICS may seem the perfect exemplification of the data-driven view, I show how causal knowledge is necessary for (...) the project, both as a source for handling complexity and as an output for meeting the project’s goals. Consequently, I argue that data-driven claims about causality are fundamentally flawed and causal knowledge should be considered a necessary aspect of Big Data science. In addition, I present the consequences of this result on other data-driven claims, concerning the role of theoretical considerations. I argue that the importance of causal knowledge and other kinds of theoretical engagement in EXPOsOMICS undermine theory-free accounts and suggest alternative ways of framing science based on Big Data. (shrink)

Hunting Causes and Using Them argues that causation is not one thing, as commonly assumed, but many. There is a huge variety of causal relations, each with different characterizing features, different methods for discovery and different uses to which it can be put. In this collection of new and previously published essays, Nancy Cartwright provides a critical survey of philosophical and economic literature on causality, with a special focus on the currently fashionable Bayes-nets and invariance methods - and it exposes (...) a huge gap in that literature. Almost every account treats either exclusively how to hunt causes or how to use them. But where is the bridge between? It's no good knowing how to warrant a causal claim if we don't know what we can do with that claim once we have it. This book will interest philosophers, economists and social scientists. (shrink)

Causal claims in physics may have two familiar kinds of support: theoretical and experimental. This paper claims that a rigorous mathematical derivation in a realistic model is necessary, though not sufficient, for full theoretical support. The support is not provided by the derivation itself; but rather it comes from a detailed back-tracing through the derivation, matching the mathematical dependencies, point by point, with details of the causal story. This back-tracing is not enough to pick out the correct causal story, however; (...) a good deal of background causal knowledge is required as well. These claims are illustrated by a detailed example of what causes the Lamb dip in gas lasers. (shrink)

As physicalisms of various kinds have faced difficulties in recent years, the time has come to explore possible alternatives, one of which is yinyang ontology. A yinyang theorist is expected to provide a plausible account of causation to replace the traditional notion of causation. The present paper is critical of the Humean tradition, which understands the relata of causal relations in terms of passive materiality so that humans use referential terms to describe causal relations constructively. But an alternative notion of (...) reference is available according to which causal relata are active processors of the information with which they interact. On this latter view, humans use referential language to describe the structure in which the relata interrelate themselves so that the structure can be understood hermeneutically. Reference on this view is naturalized. In this article I advance two arguments for this thesis, one concerning the informationality of states and the other related to the essentiality of properties. (shrink)

In this thesis, I give a metascientific account of causality in medicine. I begin with two historical cases of causal discovery. These are the discovery of the causation of Burkitt’s lymphoma by the Epstein-Barr virus, and of the various viral causes suggested for cervical cancer. These historical cases then support a philosophical discussion of causality in medicine. This begins with an introduction to the Russo- Williamson thesis (RWT), and discussion of a range of counter-arguments against it. Despite these, I argue (...) that the RWT is historically workable, given a small number of modifications. I then expand Russo and Williamson’s account. I first develop their suggestion that causal relationships in medicine require some kind of evidence of mechanism. I begin with a number of accounts of mechanisms and produce a range of consensus features of them. I then develop this consensus position by reference to the two historical case studies with an eye to their operational competence. In particular, I suggest that it is mechanistic models and their representations which we are concerned with in medicine, rather than the mechanism as it exists in the world. -/- I then employ these mechanistic models to give an account of the sorts of evidence used in formulating and evaluating causal claims. Again, I use the two human viral oncogenesis cases to give this account. I characterise and distinguish evidence of mechanism from evidence of difference-making, and relate this to mechanistic models. I then suggest the relationship between types of evidence presents us with a means of tackling the reference-class problem. This sets the scene for the final chapter. Here, I suggest the manner in which these two different classes of evidence become integrated is also reflected in the way that developing research programmes change as their associated causal claims develop. (shrink)

Following the practice of human beings everywhere historians distinguish the real or most significant cause of an occurrence or state of affairs from ‘less important considerations’, ‘precipitating circumstances’, or ‘mere conditions’. I shall term claims that some phenomenon is most basically to be attributed to some one of the factors causally necessary for its occurrence attributive causal explanations or causal attributions and discuss here the extent to which moral convictions are constitutive of them.

Abductive reasoning assigns special status to the explanatory power of a hypothesis. But how do people make explanatory judgments? Our study clarifies this issue by asking: How does the explanatory power of a hypothesis cohere with other cognitive factors? How does probabilistic information affect explanatory judgments? In order to answer these questions, we conducted an experiment with 671 participants. Their task was to make judgments about a potentially explanatory hypothesis and its cognitive virtues. In the responses, we isolated three constructs: (...) Explanatory Value, Rational Acceptability, and Entailment. Explanatory judgments strongly cohered with judgments of causal relevance and with a sense of understanding. Furthermore, we found that Explanatory Value was sensitive to manipulations of statistical relevance relations between hypothesis and evidence, but not to explicit information about the prior probability of the hypothesis. These results indicate that probabilistic information about statistical relevance is a strong determinant of Explanatory Value. More generally, our study suggests that abductive and probabilistic reasoning are two distinct modes of inference. (shrink)

This book brings together research on the topic of causation from experts in the fields of linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. It draws on data from a wide range of languages and seeks to arrive at a more sophisticated understanding of how causal concepts are expressed in causal meanings, and how those meanings are organized into structures.

This volume includes a lucid discussion of recent developments by philosophers such as Block, Davidson, Fodor, Kim, Lewis, Mellor, Putnam, Schiffer, Shoemaker, ...

Fairley and Manktelow (1997) have mistaken an error of presentation for an error of substance. My causal the- ory remains the same: Causal reasoning scenarios that require the reasoner to decide whether or not an effect will occur in the presence of a viable cause trigger considera- tion of disabling conditions—that is, factors that could prevent the effect from occurring in the presence of a vi- able cause. Scenarios that require the reasoner to decide whether or not a particular cause (...) has produced an ob- served effect trigger consideration of possible alternative causes. The data reported by Cummins (1995) and Cum- mins, Lubart, Alksnis, and Rist (1991) are consistent with this theoretical analysis. (shrink)