Causality and Explanation: A Reply to Two Critiques
- 1 September 1997
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Philosophy of Science
- Vol. 64 (3) , 461-477
- https://doi.org/10.1086/392561
Abstract
This paper discusses several distinct process theories of causality offered in recent years by Phil Dowe and me. It addresses problems concerning the explication of causal process, causal interaction, and causal transmission, whether given in terms of transmission of marks, transmission of invariant or conserved quantities, or mere possession of conserved quantities. Renouncing the mark-transmission and invariant quantity criteria, I accept a conserved quantity theory similar to Dowe's—differing basically with respect to causal transmission. This paper also responds to several fundamental constructive criticisms contained in Christopher Hitchcock's discussion of both the mark-transmission and the conserved quantity theories.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Discussion: Salmon on Explanatory RelevancePhilosophy of Science, 1995
- Causality and Conserved Quantities: A Reply to SalmonPhilosophy of Science, 1995
- Causality Without CounterfactualsPhilosophy of Science, 1994
- Process causality and asymmetryErkenntnis, 1992
- Wesley Salmon's Process Theory of Causality and the Conserved Quantity TheoryPhilosophy of Science, 1992
- Van Fraassen on ExplanationThe Journal of Philosophy, 1987
- Statistical ExplanationPublished by JSTOR ,1971
- The Status of Prior Probabilities in Statistical ExplanationPhilosophy of Science, 1965