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 Counterfactual analysis of causation is well suited to handle chancy (probabilistic) causation

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In chancy causation, the counterfactual 'if C had not occurred, E would not have occurred' is false when E had nonzero probability without C.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lewis's closest-world semantics cannot distinguish genuine probabilistic causes from mere probability-raisers when alternative causal paths exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Schaffer's trumping preemption cases show counterfactual dependence fails even in deterministic contexts, and indeterminism multiplies such failures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic causation requires that causes raise the probability of effects, a relation that counterfactual necessity cannot capture without modification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Noordhof and Hitchcock demonstrate that token-level chancy causation demands resources beyond counterfactual dependence, such as actual probability contributions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual dependence requires only that the cause was necessary in the circumstances for the effect, not that the cause was sufficient for the effect
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Chancy causation does not require the cause to be sufficient for the effect
      ?

      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.