more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 23014

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 4. Naturalised causation ]

Full Idea

Process theories of causation face a serious problem, such as killing a plant by failing to water it - a cause by omission. …Defenders of the theory propose two concepts of causation: one for legal and one for scientific contexts.

Gist of Idea

If causes are processes, what is causation by omission? (Distinguish legal from scientific causes?)

Source

Baron,S/Miller,K (Intro to the Philosophy of Time [2019], 6.2.3)

Book Ref

Baron,S/Miller,K: 'Introduction to the Philosophy of Time' [Polity 2019], p.151


A Reaction

Not much of a problem, I think. Clearly the scientific concept has priority. The plant died of dehydration, resulting from the consumption and evaporation of the available water. The human causes of that situation are legion.

Related Idea

Idea 23011 Modern accounts of causation involve either processes or counterfactuals [Baron/Miller]


The 28 ideas with the same theme [causation explained in terms of natural phenomena]:

Is there cause outside matter, and can it be separated, and is it one or many? [Aristotle]
Some say that causes are physical, some say not [Sext.Empiricus]
The old 'influx' view of causation says it is a flow of accidental properties from A to B [Suárez, by Jolley]
Causes are the substances which have the powers to produce action [Locke]
A causal interaction is when two processes intersect, and correlated modifications persist afterwards [Salmon]
Negative causations supervene on positive causations plus their laws? [Armstrong]
Science has shown that causal relations are just transfers of energy or momentum [Fair, by Sosa/Tooley]
Fair shifted his view to talk of counterfactuals about energy flow [Fair, by Schaffer,J]
Reductionists can't explain accidents, uninstantiated laws, probabilities, or the existence of any laws [Tooley]
Causation isn't energy transfer, because an electron is caused by previous temporal parts [Sosa/Tooley]
If direction of causation is just direction of energy transfer, that seems to involve causation [Sosa/Tooley]
Causation in the material world is energy-transfer, of motion, electricity or gravity [McGinn]
We should analyse causation in terms of powers, not vice versa [Molnar]
A cause has its effects in virtue of its properties [Crane]
Physical causation consists in transference of conserved quantities [Dowe, by Mumford/Anjum]
Causation interaction is an exchange of conserved quantities, such as mass, energy or charge [Dowe, by Psillos]
We should explain causation by powers, not powers by causation [Bird]
Causation transcends nature, because absences can cause things [Schaffer,J]
Causation may not be a process, if a crucial part of the process is 'disconnected' [Schaffer,J]
A causal process needs to be connected to the effect in the right way [Schaffer,J]
Causation can't be a process, because a process needs causation as a primitive [Schaffer,J]
Since causal events are related by mechanisms, causation can be analysed in that way [Glennan]
Causation is the passing around of powers [Mumford/Anjum]
The main process theory of causation says it is transference of mass, energy, momentum or charge [Baron/Miller]
If causes are processes, what is causation by omission? (Distinguish legal from scientific causes?) [Baron/Miller]
Casuation is the transmission of conserved quantities between causal processes [Ingthorsson]
Interventionist causal theory says it gets a reliable result whenever you manipulate it [Ingthorsson]
Causation as transfer only works for asymmetric interactions [Ingthorsson]