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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The new counterfactual theory of causation does not handle late preemption completely satisfactorily

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Billy's throw has some degree of influence on the bottle's shattering because if Billy had thrown his rock earlier and differently, the bottle would have shattered earlier and differently
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lewis must dismiss these counterfactual dependencies as too distant to be relevant, but no principled metric of distance in alterations is provided
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Similar alterations of Suzy's throw are treated as relevant to Suzy's causal influence, making the asymmetric treatment unprincipled
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lewis's 'influence' account requires grading causal contribution by counterfactual variation, but late preemption cases yield identical influence scores for preempted backup causes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ned Hall's distinction between 'dependence' and 'production' shows that counterfactual theories systematically conflate two independent causal concepts, making late preemption structurally unresolvable within a single framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory that requires ad hoc stipulations about which counterfactual variations 'count' violates the Humean demand for a purely extensional, non-intensional reduction of causal facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Jonathan Schaffer's work on trumping preemption demonstrates that counterfactual theories cannot distinguish causal priority from mere counterfactual sufficiency without invoking irreducibly modal primitives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In late preemption, both Suzy's and Billy's throws are nomically sufficient for the effect, so any principled selection criterion must appeal to temporal or mechanistic facts that Lewis's purely counterfactual framework explicitly excludes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.