If the contrastivist move is accepted, it generates a revisionary causal ontology where ordinary singular causal claims become systematically indeterminate without further specification of contrasts.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Causal ontology(as used in metaphysics): A theory about what kinds of things actually exist in the world when we're talking about causes and effects.
Contrastivist(as used in philosophy of causation): A philosophical approach that says when we talk about causes, we're always implicitly comparing what actually happened to other possibilities that didn't happen—like saying 'the match caused the fire (rather than it not being struck)' versus 'the oxygen caused the fire (rather than there being no oxygen).'
Revisionary(describing what Geach and Sommers think Fregean logic does to ordinary language): Changing or rewriting something rather than just describing it as it already is.
Singular causal claims(as used in philosophy of causation): Statements about specific causes and effects in particular situations, like 'the lightning caused the fire' rather than general rules about how lightning works.

Based on where you are in your exploration