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 Enç's use of 'causation' should not be interpreted as claiming that reductive explanation is literally causal explanation

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Immanent causation—causation where cause and effect are identical or overlapping—is a coherent notion defended by Aristotle and revived by E.J. Lowe.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If immanent causation is philosophically respectable, then Enç's 'generative' relation holding between a and itself is compatible with genuine causal explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dismissing the causal reading on grounds that causes and effects must be numerically distinct presupposes a Humean regularity view that Enç need not accept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jaegwon Kim's account of reductive explanation in 'Mind in a Physical World' explicitly identifies micro-to-macro reductive relations with causal-mechanical explanations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the dominant tradition in reduction literature treats reductive dependence as causal, the burden of proof falls on those who claim Enç's similar terminology is non-causal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Terminological charity in philosophical interpretation requires reading 'causation' in its literal sense unless the author explicitly stipulates otherwise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Enç describes the reductive dependence relation as 'generative' and as one that may hold between an object a and an object b even if a equals b
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The relation Enç describes does not fit the standard usage of the term 'causation'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Standard causal relations do not hold between an object and 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.