Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
[So, where are we? Let me briefly summarize what I have presented and argued for so far. Part I set the stage for the discussion about causation in the special sciences. Chapter 1 elaborated criteria of adequacy for an explication of causation in the special sciences (the naturalist and the distinction criterion). Chapter 2 introduced the influential interventionist theory of causation. I focused on Woodward’s widely-received interventionist approach according to which X causes Y iff, roughly, there is a possible intervention on X that changes the value of Y. I argued that interventionist theories are prima facie (promising to be) in accord with the criteria of adequacy, although I diagnosed that there are several desiderata that have to be addressed by interventionists (most importantly, interventionists ought to account for the explication of a non-universal law, and for the features of time-asymmetry and causal asymmetry).]
Published: Oct 6, 2015
Keywords: Causal Model; Special Science; Causal Statement; Counterfactual Dependence; Token Event
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.