Causal exclusion and the limits of proportionality

Philosophical Studies 174 (6):1459-1474 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Causal exclusion arguments are taken to threaten the autonomy of the special sciences, and the causal efficacy of mental properties. A recent line of response to these arguments has appealed to “independently plausible” and “well grounded” theories of causation to rebut key premises. In this paper I consider two papers which proceed in this vein and show that they share a common feature: they both require causes to be proportional to their effects. I argue that this feature is a bug, and one that generalises: any attempt to rescue the autonomy of the special sciences, or the efficacy of the mental, from exclusion worries had better not look to proportionality for help.

Author's Profile

Neil McDonnell
University of Glasgow

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-07-19

Downloads
901 (#13,573)

6 months
97 (#36,222)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?