Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:45:21.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cartwright, Causality, and Coincidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Deborah G. Mayo
Deborah G. Mayo*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand, State University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In How the Laws of Physics Lie (1983)2 Cartwright argues for being a realist about theoretical entities but non-realist about theoretical laws. Her reason for this distinction is that only the former involves causal explanation, and accepting causal explanations commits us to the existence of the causal entity invoked. “What is special about explanation by theoretical entity is that it is causal explanation, and existence is an internal characteristic of causal claims. There is nothing similar for theoretical laws.” (p. 93). For, according to Cartwright, the acceptability of a theoretical explanation is a matter of its ability to satisfy such criteria as prganizing and simplifying, and in her view, “success at organizing, predicting, and classifying is never an argument for truth.” (p. 91). In contrast, Cartwright claims, “When I infer from an effect to a cause, I am asking what made the effect occur, what brought it about.

Type
Part I. Physics
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 42 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Footnotes

1

I am greatly indebted to Ronald Giere and Alan Musgrave for many helpful discussions and comments on early drafts of this paper. I am also grateful to Larry Laudan for very valuable criticisms, and to Norman Gilinsky and Joseph Pitt for useful suggestions.

References

Brown, R. (1828). “A Brief Account of Microscopical Observations Made in the Months of June, July and August, 1827, on the Particles Contained in the Pollen of Plants; and on the General Existence of Active Molecules in Organic Bodies.” Philosophical Magazine 4: 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, S. (1968). “A History of Random Processes. I. Brownian Movement from Brown to Perrin.” Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 5: 1–36. (As reprinted in Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability. Volume II. Edited by Sir M., Kendal and Plackett, R.L New York: MacMillan, 1977. Pages 347-382.)Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekhar, S. (1943). “Stochastic Problems in Physics and Astronomy.” Reviews of Modern Physics 15: 1–89. (As reprinted in Wax (1954). Pages 3-91.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. (1908). Ʃώζειν τα ϕαινóuɛνα.: Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon a Galilée. Paris: A. Hermann. (As reprinted as To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo. (trans.) Doland, E and Maschler, C Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1905). “Die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen.” Annalen der Physikr.ser. 4, 17: 549-560. (As reprinted as “On the Movement of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid Demanded by the Molecular-Kinetic Theory of Heat.” In Einstein (1926). Pages 1-18.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A. (1908). “Elementare Theorie der Brownschen Bewegung.” Zeitsohrift für Elektroohemie 14: 235–239. (As reprinted as “Elementary Theory of Brownian Motion.” In Einstein (1926). Pages 68-85.)Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1926). Investigations on the Theory of the Brownian Movement. (ed.) Fürth, R (trans.) Cowper, A.D London: Methuen and Company. (As reprinted New York: Dover Publications, 1956.)Google Scholar
Gardner, M. (1979).“Realism and Instrumentalism in 19th Century Atomism.” Philosophy of Science 46: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouy, L. (1888). “Note sur le mouvement brownien.” Journal de Physique 7: 561–564.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G.H. (1965). “Inference to the Best Explanation.” The Philosophical Review 74: 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, D. (1985). “Behavioristic, Evidential1st, and Learning Models of Statistical Testing.” Philosophy of Science 52: 493–516.Google Scholar
Nye, M.J. (1972). Molecular Reality. London: Macdonald and Company.Google Scholar
Parzen, E. (1960). Modern Probability Theory and Its Applications. New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrin, J. (1906). “Le contenu essential des principes de la thermodynamique.” Bull. Soo. Philosophie 6: 81–111. (As reprinted in Perrin (1950). Pages 57-80.)Google Scholar
Perrin, J. (1913). Les A tomes. Paris: Alcan. (As reprinted as Atoms , (trans.) Hammick, D.L London: Constable and Company, 1923.)Google Scholar
Perrin, J. (1950). Oeuvres Soientifiaues de Jean Perrin. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Ramsay, W. 1882). “On Brownian or Pedetic Motion.” Proceedings of the Bristol Naturalists’ Society 3: 299–302.Google Scholar
Salmon, W.C. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, G.E. and Ornstein, L.S (1930). “On the Theory of the Brownian Motion.” Physical Review 36: 823-811. (As reprinted in Wax (1954). Pages 93-111.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, N. ed.). (1954). Selected Papers on Noise and Stochastic Processes. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar