Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:07:22.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cartwright and Otte on Simpson's Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ellery Eells
Ellery Eells*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Richard Otte (1985) has recently criticized the resolution of Simpson's paradox given by Nancy Cartwright (1979). He argues that there are difficulties with the version of the theory of probabilistic causality that Cartwright has developed, and that there is a way in which Simpson's paradox can arise that Cartwright's theory cannot handle. And Otte develops his own theory of probabilistic causality. I defend Cartwright's solution, and I argue that there are difficulties with the theory of probabilistic causality that Otte proposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 233 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I thank Elliott Sober for a number of useful comments, and the American Council of Learned Societies for financial support.

References

REFERENCES

Cartwright, N. (1979), “Causal Laws and Effective Strategies”, Noûs 13: 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. (1984), “Probabilistic Causality Emancipated”, in French, P. A.; Uehling, T. E. Jr.; and Wettstein, H. K. (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy IX: Causation and Causal Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 169–175.Google Scholar
Eells, E. (1986), “Probabilistic Causal Interaction”, Philosophy of Science 53: 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1987), “Discussion: Probabilistic Causality: Reply to John Dupré”, Philosophy of Science 54: 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. and Sober, E. (1983), “Probabilistic Causality and the Question of Transitivity”, Philosophy of Science 50: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. (1961–1962), “A Causal Calculus I-II”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44: 305–318; 45: 43–51; Errata and Corrigenda, 49: 88.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hesslow, G. (1976), “Discussion: Two Notes on the Probabilistic Approach to Causality”, Philosophy of Science 43: 290–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otte, R. (1985), “Probabilistic Causality and Simpson's Paradox”, Philosophy of Science 52: 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980), Causal Necessity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1984), Pragmatics and Empiricism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, Massachusetts; and London, England: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1985), “Two Concepts of Cause”, in Asquith, P. D. and Kitcher, P. (eds.), PSA 1984: Proceedings of the 1984 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 2. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 405–424.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1970), A Probabilistic Theory of Causality. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar