Rejecting sufficiency as the criterion of causation does not establish Anscombe's conclusion, since structured counterfactual dependence preserves robust causal necessity without relying on probabilistic looseness.

?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.

Anscombe(the author being discussed): Elizabeth Anscombe was a 20th-century philosopher who wrote influential work on intention, meaning, and knowledge. She argued that we can know what we're doing without observing ourselves.
Probabilistic looseness(what philosophers want to avoid when explaining real causation): The vagueness or uncertainty that comes from defining causes only through probability (like saying 'this increases the chance of that') rather than definite necessity.
Structured counterfactual dependence(a more sophisticated approach to understanding causation): A refined version of counterfactual thinking that pays attention to the pattern or framework of how causes and effects connect, not just whether one depends on the other.
Sufficiency (as criterion of causation)(describes one way philosophers try to define what makes something a 'real' cause): The idea that if event A is enough by itself to make event B happen, then A is the cause of B—without needing anything else.

Based on where you are in your exploration