more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Disagreement about 'the' cause is only disagreement about which part of the causal history is most salient for the purposes of some particular inquiry.
Gist of Idea
We only pick 'the' cause for the purposes of some particular enquiry.
Source
David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], I)
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'Philosophical Papers Vol.2' [OUP 1986], p.215
A Reaction
I don't believe this. In the majority of cases I see the cause of an event, without having any interest in any particular enquiry. It is just so obvious that there isn't even a disagreement. Maybe there is only one sensible enquiry.
4809 | Lewis endorses the thesis that all explanation of singular events is causal explanation [Lewis, by Psillos] |
15551 | Ways of carving causes may be natural, but never 'right' [Lewis] |
15552 | We only pick 'the' cause for the purposes of some particular enquiry. [Lewis] |
15553 | Causal dependence is counterfactual dependence between events [Lewis] |
14321 | To explain an event is to provide some information about its causal history [Lewis] |
15554 | A disposition needs a causal basis, a property in a certain causal role. Could the disposition be the property? [Lewis] |
15556 | Science may well pursue generalised explanation, rather than laws [Lewis] |
15555 | Explaining match lighting in general is like explaining one lighting of a match [Lewis] |
15559 | Does a good explanation produce understanding? That claim is just empty [Lewis] |
15558 | A good explanation is supposed to show that the event had to happen [Lewis] |
15557 | Verisimilitude has proved hard to analyse, and seems to have several components [Lewis] |
15560 | We can explain a chance event, but can never show why some other outcome did not occur [Lewis] |