Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading account…

Carmelics

A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

Navigate

Topics
Search
Recent Changes
Contribute
How It Works
Glossary
Thinkers
Contributors
About
Statistics
Terms
Privacy

Database

Statements: —
Perspectives: —
Topics: —

Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

Made within

DC&

Austin

Causal decision theory is justified in using causal princ... — Carmelics

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

History Edit See Inverse

Causal decision theory is justified in using causal principles despite positivist objections

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Positivism can be discredited as a philosophical framework
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Causation can be clarified sufficiently so that puzzles about causation no longer give decision theory reason to avoid it
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Hume's regularity theory shows causal relations reduce to constant conjunction, making 'causal principles' epistemically equivalent to evidential correlations.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.If causation reduces to patterns of association, CDT's appeal to causal structure over evidential structure collapses into a distinction without a difference.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

1.Price and Menzies argue that causal knowledge is itself grounded in agent-relative evidential experience, making CDT's causal primitives epistemically prior to no alternative.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Discrediting positivism as a framework does not automatically validate any particular positive account of causation sufficient to ground CDT's interventionist assumptions.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Topics

Causation Truth & Knowledge

Connections

1 topic

Skepticism1 linked

Related

Causation can be clarified sufficiently so that puzzles about causation no longe...Discrediting positivism as a framework does not automatically validate any parti...Hume's regularity theory shows causal relations reduce to constant conjunction, ...If causation reduces to patterns of association, CDT's appeal to causal structur...

+2 moreShow less

Positivism can be discredited as a philosophical framework Price and Menzies argue that causal knowledge is itself grounded in agent-relati...

Similar

Evidential decision theory and causal decision theory may agree on rec...89%This result agrees with causal decision theory's verdict under other a...83%Agreement between evidential and causal decision theory on act recomme...81%Causal decision theory's recommendations are independent of how a deci...81%

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

SEP: decision-causal

View source passageHide passage

Another objection to causal decision theory concedes that two-boxing is the rational choice in Newcomb’s problem but rejects causal principles of choice that yield two-boxing. It seeks noncausal principles that yield two-boxing. Positivism is a source of aversion to decision principles incorporating causation. Some decision theorists shun causation because no positivist account specifies its nature. Without a definition of causation in terms of observable phenomena, they prefer that decision the

Extraction notes

Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (1 for, 2 against)
Edits: 1 edit