Ideas from 'Causality: Reductionism versus Realism' by Michael Tooley [1990], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Causation' (ed/tr Sosa,E. /Tooley,M.) [OUP 1993,0-19-875094-3]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 4. Naturalised causation
Reductionists can't explain accidents, uninstantiated laws, probabilities, or the existence of any laws
                        Full Idea: Reductionist accounts of causation cannot distinguish laws from accidental uniformities, cannot allow for basic uninstantiated laws, can't explain probabilistic laws, and cannot even demonstrate the existence of laws.
                        From: Michael Tooley (Causality: Reductionism versus Realism [1990], 2)
                        A reaction: I am tempted to say that this is so much the worse for the idea of laws. Extensive regularities only occur for a reason. Probabilities aren't laws. Hypothetical facts will cover uninstantiated laws. Laws are just patterns.
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 8. Particular Causation / e. Probabilistic causation
Quantum physics suggests that the basic laws of nature are probabilistic
                        Full Idea: Quantum physics seems to lend strong support to the idea that the basic laws of nature may well be probabilistic.
                        From: Michael Tooley (Causality: Reductionism versus Realism [1990], 3.2.1)
                        A reaction: Groan. Quantum physics should be outlawed from all philosophical discussions. The scientists don't understand it themselves. I'm certainly not going to build my worldview on it. I don't accept that these probabilities could count as 'laws'.