Therefore, normality-based accounts conflate the metaphysics of causation with pragmatics of causal explanation, a distinction Hitchcock himself defends in separating causation from causal relevance.

?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.

Causal explanation(one way to explain human actions): An explanation of why something happened based on what caused it to happen.
Hitchcock(as the philosopher whose work is being referenced): Christopher Hitchcock, a contemporary philosopher who specializes in analyzing causation and has written about the difference between what actually causes something and what we cite as the cause in explanations.
Normality-based accounts(as the target of criticism in this statement): Philosophical theories that define causation by reference to what is 'normal' or typical in a situation, rather than by some other standard.
causal relevance(formal causal theory / probability-raising accounts of causation): An event C at time t is causally relevant for an event E at time t' if and only if t < t' and C is not causally neutral for E; equivalently, if C is a positive, negative, or mixed cause of E

Based on where you are in your exploration