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
    The bomb exploded — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The dial-turning act was a cause of the explosion even though the explosion did not counterfactually depend on the dial-turning act

    The bomb exploded

    ?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.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Causation

    Related

    Had the dial not been turned up, the bomb would merely have been very unlikely t...The dial-turning act was a cause of the explosion even though the explosion did ...Turning the dial up increased the chance of the bomb exploding

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Yet the radioactive decay is the cause of the bomb exploding.75%Had the dial not been turned up, the bomb would merely have been very ...74%Turning the dial up increased the chance of the bomb exploding73%In the Geiger counter bomb case, the bomb exploding was caused by the ...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: causation-counterfactual
    View source passageHide passage
    In principle a counterfactual analysis of causation is well placed to deal with chancy causation, since counterfactual dependence does not require that the cause was sufficient, in the circumstances, for the effect – it only requires that the cause was necessary in the circumstances for the effect. The problem posed by abandoning the assumption of determinism, however, is that pervasive indeterminism undermines the plausibility of the idea that – preemption and overdetermination aside – effects

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective