Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T22:11:59.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanatory Conditionals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Holger Andreas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article aims to complement causal model approaches to causal explanation by James Woodward, Joseph Halpern and Judea Pearl, and Michael Strevens. It centers on a strengthened Ramsey Test of conditionals: α≫γ if and only if, after suspending judgment about α and γ, an agent can infer γ from the supposition of α (in the context of further beliefs in the background). Holger Andreas and Mario Günther used this conditional as the starting point of an analysis of ‘because’ in natural language. I refine this analysis so as to yield a fully fledged account of (deterministic) causal explanation.

Type
Logic, Formal Epistemology, and Decision Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , December 2019 , pp. 993 - 1004
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

*

To contact the author, please write to: Department of Economics, Philosophy and Political Science, University of British Columbia Okanagan, 1147 Research Road, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada; e-mail: [email protected].

References

Andreas, H., and Günther, M.. 2018. “On the Ramsey Test Analysis of ‘Because.’” Erkenntnis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0006-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreas, H., and Günther, M.. 2019. “Causation in Terms of Production.” Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01275-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., and Callender, C.. 2009. “A Better Best System Account of Lawhood.” Philosophical Studies 145 (1): 1–34..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y., and Pearl, J.. 2005a. “Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach.” Pt. 1, “Causes.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4): 843–87..Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y., and Pearl, J.. 2005b. “Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach.” Pt. 2, “Explanations.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4): 889–911..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. 1999. A Textbook of Belief Dynamics: Theory Change and Database Updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1989. “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World.” In Scientific Explanation, ed. Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W., 410–505. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Paul, L. A., and Hall, N.. 2013. Causation: A User’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rott, H. 1986. “Ifs, Though, and Because.” Erkenntnis 25 (3): 345–70..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurz, G. 2014. “Criteria of Theoreticity: Bridging Statement and Non-statement View.” Erkenntnis 79 (S8): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spohn, W. 2006. “Causation: An alternative.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1): 93–119..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1968. “A Theory of Conditionals.” In Studies in Logical Theory, ed. Rescher, N., 98–112. American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Strevens, M. 2004. “The Causal and Unification Approaches to Explanation Unified—Causally.” Noûs 38 (1): 154–76..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, M.. 2008. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar