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
    When the occurrence of a or not-a happens under exactly t... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→In Mellor's G&H world with equally distributed chains, there can be no causal relationship between the individual b and the individual a.

    When the occurrence of a or not-a happens under exactly the same circumstances given b, no causal relationship between individual b and individual a can be established.

    Causation
    ?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

    In Mellor's G&H world with equally distributed chains, there can be no causal re...In Mellor's G&H world, the number of G-chains and H-chains is equal, making the ...

    Similar

    In Mellor's G&H world with equally distributed chains, there can be no...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    81%
    Mellor defines a causal relation between singular events a and b as a ...79%
    If a does not raise the probability of b, then a cannot causally affec...79%
    Standard causal relations do not hold between an object and itself78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: causation-backwards
    View source passageHide passage
    Some philosophers have not found this argument very convincing. Faye (1994) has pointed to the following problematic issues. First, Mellor measures the probability of singular events (propensities) instead of the probability of certain kinds of events. Second, he does not differentiate between circumstances in which a \(B\) is followed by an \(A\) and those in which a \(B\) is not followed by an \(A\). The argument is valid only if it can be proved, and not be stipulated, that (1) and (3) happen

    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