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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Contrastivism about causation is a distinct position from contrastivism about explanation

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.