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
    If the relevance relation constitutively shapes what caus... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Contrastivism about causation is a distinct position from contrastivism about explanation

    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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Explanation and causation share a common logical structure: both require selecting relevant factors from infinite possibilities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If context determines which factors are explanatorily relevant, and explanation tracks causal facts, then context must determine causal facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying contrastivism about causation while accepting it for explanation creates an unjustified asymmetry between explanation and causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Causal facts (what causes what) are mind-independent; relevance relations are epistemic and context-dependent. They need not align.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Contrastive explanation selects from fixed causal facts; it doesn't constitute them. Relevance shapes *which* facts we cite, not what obtains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if relevance shapes explanatory contrastivism, explanation and causation are distinct phenomena—one is epistemic, one is metaphysical.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    Causal facts (what causes what) are mind-independent; relevance relations are ep...Contrastive explanation selects from fixed causal facts; it doesn't constitute t...Contrastivism about causation is a distinct position from contrastivism about ex...Denying contrastivism about causation while accepting it for explanation creates...
    +3 moreShow less
    Even if relevance shapes explanatory contrastivism, explanation and causation ar...Explanation and causation share a common logical structure: both require selecti...If context determines which factors are explanatorily relevant, and explanation ...

    Details

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