Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T03:42:01.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causal Processes and Interactions: What Are They and What Are They Good For?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Christopher Hitchcock
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerning any object of philosophical analysis, we can ask several questions, including the two posed in the title of this paper. Despite difficulties in formulating a precise criterion to distinguish causal processes from pseudoprocesses, and causal interactions from mere spatiotemporal intersections, I argue that Salmon answered the first of these questions with extraordinary clarity. The second question, by contrast, has received very little attention. I will present two problems: in the first, it seems that Salmon has provided exactly the conceptual resources needed to solve the problem; in the second, it is difficult to see how causal processes and interactions may be used to shed any light. In general, the way to carry Salmon's program forward will be to demonstrate that these resources can be made to do real philosophical work.

Type
Wesley C. Salmon 1925-2001: A Symposium Honoring His Contributions to the Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 932 - 941
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by 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 would like to thank all of those in attendance at the 2002 PSA meeting whose comments—both in the session, and in the bar afterward—helped me to refine the ideas in this paper. I am especially indebted to Peter Machamer for a spirited debate about birth control pills. I also wish to thank my cosymposiasts Phil Dowe and Larry Sklar; Adolf Grünbaum for sharing his personal recollections of Wes Salmon; Paul Humphreys for organizing the symposium; and Merrilee Salmon for giving her blessing to the event. Finally, I would like to thank Wes himself for years of guidance, inspiration, and just plain great philosophy.

References

Dowe, Phil (1992), “Wesley Salmon’s Process Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory”, Wesley Salmon’s Process Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory 59:195–216.Google Scholar
Dowe, Phil (2000), Physical Causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, Phil (2004) “Causation and Misconnections”, Causation and Misconnections 71 (Proceedings): 926–931.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965), “Aspects of Scientific Explanation”, in Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press, 331–496.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, Christopher R. (1995), “Discussion: Salmon on Explanatory Relevance”, Discussion: Salmon on Explanatory Relevance 62:304–320.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, Christopher R. (1996), “The Mechanist and the Snail”, The Mechanist and the Snail 84:91–105.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Kitcher, Philip and Salmon, Wesley C. (eds.), Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 410–505.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. (1986), “Causal Explanation”, in Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 214–240.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1962), “The Analytic and the Synthetic”, in Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 358–397.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand (1913), “On the Notion of Cause”, On the Notion of Cause 13:1–26.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1971), “Statistical Explanation”, in Salmon, Wesley C. et al., Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 29–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1977), “An ‘At-At’ Theory of Causal Influence”, An ‘At-At’ Theory of Causal Influence 44:215–224.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1978), “Why Ask ‘Why?’?” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 51:683–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1980), “Probabilistic Causality”, Probabilistic Causality 61:50–74.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1982), “Causality: Production and Propagation”, in Asquith, Peter and Giere, Ronald (eds.), PSA 1980, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 49–69.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (1994), “Causality without Counterfactuals”, Causality without Counterfactuals 61:297–312.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. (ed.) (1970), Zeno’s Paradoxes. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James F. (2003), Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James F., and Hitchcock, Christopher R. (2003), “Explanatory Generalizations, Part I: A Counterfactual Account”, Explanatory Generalizations, Part I: A Counterfactual Account 37:1–24.Google Scholar