more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Here is my main thesis: to explain an event is to provide some information about its causal history.
Gist of Idea
To explain an event is to provide some information about its causal history
Source
David Lewis (Causal Explanation [1986], II)
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'Philosophical Papers Vol.2' [OUP 1986], p.217
A Reaction
The obvious thought is that you might provide some tiny and barely relevant part of that causal history, such as a bird perched on the Titanic's iceberg. So how do we distinguish the 'important' causal information?
| 4809 | Lewis endorses the thesis that all explanation of singular events is causal explanation [Lewis, by Psillos] |
| 15552 | We only pick 'the' cause for the purposes of some particular enquiry. [Lewis] |
| 15551 | Ways of carving causes may be natural, but never 'right' [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] |
| 15555 | Explaining match lighting in general is like explaining one lighting of a match [Lewis] |
| 15556 | Science may well pursue generalised explanation, rather than laws [Lewis] |
| 15558 | A good explanation is supposed to show that the event had to happen [Lewis] |
| 15559 | Does a good explanation produce understanding? That claim is just empty [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] |