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 dial-turning act was a cause of the explosion even th... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Causal relevance requires only that an action raise the probability of an outcome, not that it be necessary for that outcome (Eells 1991).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The dial-turning act raised the objective chance of explosion, making it a probabilistic cause even under indeterministic overdetermination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Lewis's own later work (2004) defines causation via influence, where altering the manner of C alters the manner of E, satisfied here by degree of certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual dependence is sufficient but not necessary for causation; process continuity independently grounds causal claims (Salmon 1984).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The dial-turning act initiated a continuous physical process—a specific causal mechanism—connecting it to the explosion regardless of alternative pathways.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Turning the dial up increased the chance of the bomb exploding
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Had the dial not been turned up, the bomb would merely have been very unlikely to explode, not certain not to explode
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The bomb exploded
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Causation

    Related

    Causal relevance requires only that an action raise the probability of an outcom...Counterfactual dependence is sufficient but not necessary for causation; process...Had the dial not been turned up, the bomb would merely have been very unlikely t...Lewis's own later work (2004) defines causation via influence, where altering th...
    +4 moreShow less
    The bomb explodedThe dial-turning act initiated a continuous physical process—a specific causal m...The dial-turning act raised the objective chance of explosion, making it a proba...Turning the dial up increased the chance of the bomb exploding

    Similar

    Had the dial not been turned up, the bomb would merely have been very ...79%Turning the dial up increased the chance of the bomb exploding77%The radioactive decay was not sufficient to produce the explosion — it...75%In the Geiger counter bomb case, the bomb exploding was caused by the ...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit