Pre-emption cases may support, not undermine, the counterfactual theory of causation

Synthese:1-19 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Pre-emption cases have been taken by almost everyone to imply the unviability of the simple counterfactual theory of causation. Yet there is ample motivation from scientific practice to endorse a simple version of the theory if we can. There is a way in which a simple counterfactual theory, at least if understood contrastively, can be supported even while acknowledging that intuition goes firmly against it in pre-emption cases – or rather, only in some of those cases. For I present several new pre-emption cases in which causal intuition does not go against the counterfactual theory, a fact that has been verified experimentally. I suggest an account of framing effects that can square the circle. Crucially, this account offers hope of theoretical salvation – but only to the counterfactual theory of causation, not to others. Again, there is experimental support for this account.
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-05-10
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Causality.Pearl, Judea
Making Things Happen.Hiddleston, E.
Causation: A User’s Guide.Paul, L. A. & Hall, Ned

View all 35 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
69 ( #36,465 of 47,400 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
28 ( #26,598 of 47,400 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.