Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading 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

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Contrastivism about causation is a distinct position from... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Contrastivism about causation is a distinct position from contrastivism about explanation

    Causation
    ?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.On a contrastivist view of causation, causation is a four-place relation (c rather than c* caused e rather than e*)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a contrastivist view of explanation, explanations take the form 'Why P rather than Q?', where the contrast selects which cause is cited
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A contrastivist view of explanation is compatible with an invariantist view of causation, since contrasts in explanation merely select among causes rather than redefining the causal relation itself
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hitchcock's contrastivist account of explanation already embeds a contrastivist metaphysics: the contrast class fixes which causal pathway is operative, not merely salient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the causal pathway that explains 'why P rather than Q' is determined by the contrast, then contrasts in explanation are doing genuine causal individuation, collapsing the distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Fraassen's erotetic model shows that 'why P rather than Q' questions select a relevance relation that determines what counts as a causal fact, not just which cause to cite.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the relevance relation constitutively shapes what causal facts obtain in a context, then contrastivism about explanation entails a form of contrastivism about causation itself.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A contrastivist view of explanation is compatible with an invariantist view of c...Hitchcock's contrastivist account of explanation already embeds a contrastivist ...If the causal pathway that explains 'why P rather than Q' is determined by the c...If the relevance relation constitutively shapes what causal facts obtain in a co...
    +3 moreShow less
    On a contrastivist view of causation, causation is a four-place relation (c rath...On a contrastivist view of explanation, explanations take the form 'Why P rather...Van Fraassen's erotetic model shows that 'why P rather than Q' questions select ...

    Similar

    A contrastivist view of explanation is compatible with an invariantist...89%On a contrastivist view of causation, causation is a four-place relati...89%Self-causation is a contradiction in terms.87%Nomic causation is a kind of causation distinct from ordinary causatio...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: causation-counterfactual
    View source passageHide passage
    Cei Maslen (2004), Jonathan Schaffer (2005) and Robert Northcott (2008) all defend ‘contrastive’ accounts of causation. Schaffer conceives causation as a four-place relation – c rather than c* caused e rather than e* – and claims that context (or other devices, such as stress on a particular word) generally fixes the implied contrasts (c* and e*) in our ordinary, two-place causal talk, thereby playing a role in the truth or falsity of our (two-place) causal claims. Note that contrastivism about
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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