Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T13:42:53.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causality and Explanation: A Reply to Two Critiques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Wesley C. Salmon
Wesley C. Salmon*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh and Universität Konstanz
*
†Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 1001 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses several distinct process theories of causality offered in recent years by Phil Dowe and me. It addresses problems concerning the explication of causal process, causal interaction, and causal transmission, whether given in terms of transmission of marks, transmission of invariant or conserved quantities, or mere possession of conserved quantities. Renouncing the mark-transmission and invariant quantity criteria, I accept a conserved quantity theory similar to Dowe's—differing basically with respect to causal transmission. This paper also responds to several fundamental constructive criticisms contained in Christopher Hitchcock's discussion of both the mark-transmission and the conserved quantity theories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 461 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1997

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 should like to express my gratitude to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for support of research embodied in this paper and to the University of Konstanz for providing a congenial environment in which to carry it out. My thanks also go to Paul Hoyningen-Huene and Johanna Seibt for helpful and clarifying comments on the issues here addressed. I am most especially grateful to Phil Dowe, Christopher Hitchcock, and Philip Kitcher for their insightful contributions to the discussion of causal explanation.

References

Dowe, P. (1992a), “Wesley Salmon's Process Theory of Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory”, Philosophy of Science 59: 195–216.10.1086/289662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1992b), “Process Causality and Asymmetry”, Erkenntnis 37: 179–196.10.1007/BF00209321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1995), “Causality and Conserved Quantities: A Reply to Salmon”, Philosophy of Science 62: 321–333.10.1086/289859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. et al. (1965), The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. III. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. (1995). “Discussion: Salmon on Explanatory Relevance”, Philosophy of Science 62: 304–320.10.1086/289858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol. XIII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 410–505.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (1987), “Van Fraassen on Explanation”, Journal of Philosophy 84: 315–330.10.2307/2026782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1965), “The Status of Prior Probabilities in Statistical Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 32: 137–146.10.1086/288033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1971), “Statistical Explanation”, in Salmon et al., Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 29–87.10.2307/j.ctt6wrd9p.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1994). “Causality Without Counterfactuals”, Philosophy of Science 61: 297–312.10.1086/289801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westfall, R. S. (1971), The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar