more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
A given type of state may be causally efficacious, but not as efficacious as an alternative states, so it is not true that even a direct cause need raise the probability of its effect.
Clarification
'Efficacious' means highly likely to have the effect
Gist of Idea
The actual cause may not be the most efficacious one
Source
Michael Tooley (Causation and Supervenience [2003], 6.2.4)
Book Ref
'The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics', ed/tr. Loux,M /Zimmerman,D [OUP 2005], p.424
A Reaction
My intuition is that explaining causation in terms of probabilities entirely misses the point, which mainly concerns explaining the sense of necessitation in a cause. This idea give me a good reason for my intuition.
| 8409 | Probabilistic causal concepts are widely used in everyday life and in science [Salmon] |
| 8408 | Probabilistic causation says C is a cause of E if it increases the chances of E occurring [Mellor, by Tooley] |
| 8567 | Singular causation requires causes to raise the physical probability of their effects [Mellor] |
| 16175 | A cause won't increase the effect frequency if other causes keep interfering [Cartwright,N] |
| 8392 | Probabilist laws are compatible with effects always or never happening [Tooley] |
| 8399 | The actual cause may not be the most efficacious one [Tooley] |
| 8418 | Quantum physics suggests that the basic laws of nature are probabilistic [Tooley] |
| 18527 | Probabilistic causation is not a weak type of cause; it is just a probability of there being a cause [Heil] |
| 10376 | The actual cause may make an event less likely than a possible more effective cause [Schaffer,J] |
| 10381 | All four probability versions of causation may need causation to be primitive [Schaffer,J] |