back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 17689

[from 'What is a Law of Nature?' by David M. Armstrong, in 26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 2. Types of cause ]

Full Idea

Lacks and absences could perhaps by thought of as effects, but we ought to be deeply reluctant to think of them as causes.

Gist of Idea

Absences might be effects, but surely not causes?

Source

David M. Armstrong (What is a Law of Nature? [1983], 10.4)

Book Reference

Armstrong,D.M.: 'What is a Law of Nature?' [CUP 1985], p.147


A Reaction

Odd. So we allow that they exist (as effects), but then deny that they have any causal powers?