Combining Philosophers

Ideas for H.Putnam/P.Oppenheim, Tim Crane and Stephen P. Schwartz

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


4 ideas

26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 2. Types of cause
Causation can be seen in counterfactual terms, or as increased probability, or as energy flow [Crane]
     Full Idea: A theory of causation might say 'If A had not existed, B would not have existed' (counterfactual theory), or 'B is more likely if A occurs' (probabilistic), or 'energy flows from A to B'.
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 2.11)
     A reaction: As always, it is vital to separate epistemology from ontology. Energy won't cover agents. Whisper "Fire!" in a theatre.
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 4. Naturalised causation
A cause has its effects in virtue of its properties [Crane]
     Full Idea: Some philosophers say that a cause has its effects in virtue of its properties.
     From: Tim Crane (Causation [1995], 1.4.2)
     A reaction: The trouble with this approach, I think, is that it encourages us to invent dubious properties, because every explanation of an effect will require one. Dormative properties, for example, are ascribed to sleeping pills.
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 8. Particular Causation / b. Causal relata
Causes are properties, not events, because properties are what make a difference in a situation [Crane]
     Full Idea: My view is that causes are properties (not events); when we look for causes, we look for the aspect of a situation which made a difference, and aspects are properties or qualities.
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 2.14)
     A reaction: He is talking about explanations, which may not be causes, or at least they have a different emphasis. Don't events 'make a difference'? Events are ontologically weird
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / a. Constant conjunction
The regularity theory explains a causal event by other items than the two that are involved [Crane]
     Full Idea: An unsatisfactory aspect of the regularity thesis is that it explains why this A caused this B in terms of facts about things other that this A and this B. But we want to know what it is about this A and this B that makes one the cause of the other?
     From: Tim Crane (Causation [1995], 1.3)
     A reaction: Well said. This is the failing of any attempt to define things by their relationships (e.g. functional definitions). Hume, of course, was only relying on regularity because when he focused on the actual A and B, they had no helpful experiences to offer.