more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 6753

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / b. Nomological causation ]

Full Idea

I think laws are fundamental and where there is a cause there is always a set of laws that encompasses the cause; identifying a cause will never be the final word in an scientific investigation, but will be open to supplementation by the underlying law.

Gist of Idea

Laws are more fundamental in science than causes, and laws will explain causes

Source

Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.2)

Book Ref

Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.65

A Reaction

I think this is wrong. I would say (from the essentialist angle) that essences have causes, and the laws are the regularities that are caused by the essences. If laws are the lowest level of explanation, why these laws and not others? God?

The 22 ideas with the same theme [causes as aspects of lawlike behaviour]:

634 Pure Forms and numbers can't cause anything, and especially not movement [Aristotle]
9755 The concept of causality entails laws; random causality is a contradiction [Kant, by Korsgaard]
17709 We judge causation by relating events together by some law of nature [Kant, by Mares]
5562 Experience is only possible because we subject appearances to causal laws [Kant]
8374 We are interested in generalising about causes and effects purely for practical purposes [Ducasse]
8395 Mackie has a nomological account of general causes, and a subjunctive conditional account of single ones [Mackie, by Tooley]
8334 The virus causes yellow fever, and is 'the' cause; sweets cause tooth decay, but they are not 'the' cause [Mackie]
4778 A singular causal statement is true if it is held to fall under a law [Davidson, by Psillos]
3962 Cause and effect relations between events must follow strict laws [Davidson]
3401 A common view is that causal connections must be instances of a law [Kim]
8442 What law would explain causation in the case of causing a table to come into existence? [Sosa]
8394 Explaining causation in terms of laws can't explain the direction of causation [Tooley]
8398 Causation is a concept of a relation the same in all worlds, so it can't be a physical process [Tooley]
8325 The dominant view is that causal laws are prior; a minority say causes can be explained singly [Sosa/Tooley]
2962 Maybe causation is a form of rational explanation, not an observation or a state of mind [Lockwood]
7016 The standard view is that causal sequences are backed by laws, and between particular events [Heil]
4213 Causation may be instances of laws (seen either as constant conjunctions, or as necessities) [Lowe]
3528 Causality may require that a law is being followed [Maslin]
9430 Singular causes, and identities, might be necessary without falling under a law [Mumford]
4402 Empiricists tried to reduce causation to explanation, which they reduced to logic-plus-a-law [Psillos]
9494 Singularism about causes is wrong, as the universals involved imply laws [Bird]
6753 Laws are more fundamental in science than causes, and laws will explain causes [Bird]