Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-mzfmx Total loading time: 0.253 Render date: 2022-08-14T15:42:31.998Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Causation: One Word, Many Things

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

We currently have on offer a variety of different theories of causation. Many are strikingly good, providing detailed and plausible treatments of exemplary cases; and all suffer from clear counterexamples. I argue that, contra Hume and Kant, this is because causation is not a single, monolithic concept. There are different kinds of causal relations imbedded in different kinds of systems, readily described using thick causal concepts. Our causal theories pick out important and useful structures that fit some familiar cases—cases we discover and ones we devise to fit.

Type
Causation and Bayesian Networks
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anscombe, Elizabeth ([1971] 1993), Causality and Determination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Sosa and Tooley 1993, 88104.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1999), The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (2001a), “What Is Wrong with Bayes Nets?”, What Is Wrong with Bayes Nets? 84(2): 242264.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (2001b), “Modularity: It Can—and Generally Does—Fail”, in Galavotti, Maria Carla, Suppes, Patrick, and Costantini, Domenico (eds), Stochastic Causality. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 6584.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (2002a), “Causation: What Can Be the Use of It”, lecture delivered at University of Nottingham Philosophy Department, April 2002.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (2002b), “How to Get Causes from Probabilities (à la Simon)”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (2003), “Two Theorems on Invariance and Causality”, Two Theorems on Invariance and Causality 70(1): 203224.Google Scholar
Cooley, T., and LeRoy, S. (1985), “Atheoretical Macroeconometrics: A Critique”, Atheoretical Macroeconometrics: A Critique 16(3): 283308.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel (1998), Causal Asymmetries. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, Kevin (2001), Causality in Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, David (1988), The Way Things Work. London: Dorling Kindersley.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea (1995), “Causal Diagrams for Empirical Research”, Causal Diagrams for Empirical Research 82:669710.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea (2000), Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea (2002), “Causal Modelling and the Logic of Science”, Lakatos Award Lecture at the London School of Economics, May 9, 2002.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. (1953), “Causal Ordering and Identifiability”, in Hood, William Calvin and Koopmans, Tjalling C. (eds.), Studies in Econometric Method. New York: Wiley, 4974.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest, and Tooley, Michael (eds.) (1993), Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spirtes, Peter, Meek, C., and Richardson, Thomas (1996), Causal Inference in the Presence of Latent Variables and Selection Bias. Technical Report CMU-77-Phil, Department of Philosophy, Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard (1985), Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (1997), “Explanation, Invariance, and Intervention”, Explanation, Invariance, and Intervention 64 (Proceedings): S26S41.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2000), “Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences”, Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences 51:197254.Google Scholar
93
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Causation: One Word, Many Things
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Causation: One Word, Many Things
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Causation: One Word, Many Things
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *