Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:12:23.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Conserved Quantity Theory of Causation and Chance Raising

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Phil Dowe
Phil Dowe*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
*
†School of Philosophy, University of Tasmania, Box 252–41, Hobart, Australia 7001.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I offer an ‘integrating account’ of singular causation, where the term ‘integrating’ refers to the following program for analysing causation. There are two intuitions about causation, both of which face serious counterexamples when used as the basis for an analysis of causation. The ‘process’ intuition, which says that causes and effects are linked by concrete processes, runs into trouble with cases of ‘misconnections’, where an event which serves to prevent another fails to do so on a particular occasion and yet the two events are linked by causal processes. The chance raising intuition, according to which causes raise the chance of their effects, easily accounts for misconnections but faces the problem of chance lowering causes, a problem easily accounted for by the process approach. The integrating program attempts to provide an analysis of singular causation by synthesising the two insights, so as to solve both problems.

In this paper I show that extant versions of the integrating program due to Eells, Lewis, and Menzies fail to account for the chance-lowering counterexample. I offer a new diagnosis of the chance lowering case, and use that as a basis for an integrating account of causation which does solve both cases. In doing so, I accept various assumptions of the integrating program, in particular that there are no other problems with these two approaches. As an example of the process account, I focus on the recent CQ theory of Wesley Salmon (1997).

Type
Causation and Laws of Nature
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S486 - S501
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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 Joseph Berkovitz, Chris Hitchcock, and Ben Rogers for comments on a written draft, and also audiences in Adelaide and Kansas City for fruitful feedback. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.

References

Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1992), “Wesley Salmon's Process Theory of Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory”, Philosophy of Science 59: 195–216.10.1086/289662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1993), “On the Reduction of Process Causality to Statistical Relations”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44: 325–327.10.1093/bjps/44.2.325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1995), “Causality and Conserved Quantities: A Reply to Salmon”, Philosophy of Science 62: 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1996), “Chance Lowering Causes: Old Problems for New Versions of the Probabilistic Theory of Causation”, in Dowe, D., Korb, K., and Oliver, J. (eds.), Information, Statistics and Induction in Science. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, 226–236.10.1142/3251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1998) “Mellor on the Chances of Effects”, forthcoming in Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Boston, 1998.10.5840/wcp20-paideia199810212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1988), “Probabilistic Causal Levels”, in Skyrms, B. and Harper, W. (eds.), Causation, Chance and Credence, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1991), Probabilistic Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511570667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. and Sober, E. (1983), “Probabilistic Causality and the Question of Transitivity”, Philosophy of Science 50: 35–57.10.1086/289089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enge, H. (1966), Nuclear Physics. Amsterdam: Addison.Google Scholar
Gasking, D. (1955), “Causation and Recipes”, Mind 64: 479–487.10.1093/mind/LXIV.256.479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C., Sprites, P., and Scheines, R. (1982), “Causal Inference”, Erkenntnis 35: 151–189.Google Scholar
Good, I. (1961), “A Causal Calculus – 1”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11: 305–318.10.1093/bjps/XI.44.305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. (1962), “A Causal Calculus -2”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 12: 43–51.10.1093/bjps/XII.45.43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, P. (1989), The Chances of Explanation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986), Philosophical Papers, vol. II. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. (1995), The Facts of Causation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzies, P. (1989), “Probabilistic Causation and Causal Processes: A Critique of Lewis”, Philosophy of Science 56: 642–663.10.1086/289518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (1989), “Pure, Mixed and Spurious Probabilities and Their Significance for a Reductionist Theory of Causation”, in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 410–505.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. and Sober, E. (1986), “Causal Factors, Causal Inference, Causal Explanation”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary 60: 115–136.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1991), The Direction of Time, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. (1978), “Discussion: In Defense of a Probabilistic Theory of Causality”, Philosophy of Science 45: 604–613.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1997), “Causality and Explanation: A Reply to Two Critiques”, Philosophy of Science 64: 461–477.10.1086/392561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980), Causal Necessity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1985), “Two Concepts of Cause”, PSA 1984, 2: 405–424.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. 1970: A Probabilistic Theory of Causality. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1984), Probabilistic Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar