The Ontology of Causation: A Carnapian-Pragmatist Approach

IF 1.2 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Journal for General Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1007/s10838-023-09669-y
Zili Dong
{"title":"The Ontology of Causation: A Carnapian-Pragmatist Approach","authors":"Zili Dong","doi":"10.1007/s10838-023-09669-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Metaphysicians of causation have long debated the existence of primitive causal modalities (e.g., powers), with reductionists and realists taking opposing stances. However, little attention has been given to the legitimacy of the metaphysical question itself, despite our longstanding awareness of Rudolf Carnap’s critique of metaphysics. This article develops a (broadly) Carnapian-pragmatist approach to causation as an alternative to existing metaphysical approaches. Within this pragmatist approach, metaphysical questions about causation are reinterpreted as practical questions about the choice of causal frameworks. To motivate and justify this new approach, I argue that, in emphasizing the priority of ontology over methodology, metaphysical approaches to causation fail to adequately capture the interplay between causal ontology and causal methodology in scientific practice. In contrast, the Carnapian approach provides a more appealing alternative that emphasizes the mutual dependence and ‘balance’ between the two in an ongoing process of scientific inquiry. I use the recent controversy over ‘What counts as a cause’ in statistical causal inference as a case study to demonstrate how the Carnapian approach can help us better understand the role of ontological issues in methodological practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":44953,"journal":{"name":"Journal for General Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for General Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-023-09669-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metaphysicians of causation have long debated the existence of primitive causal modalities (e.g., powers), with reductionists and realists taking opposing stances. However, little attention has been given to the legitimacy of the metaphysical question itself, despite our longstanding awareness of Rudolf Carnap’s critique of metaphysics. This article develops a (broadly) Carnapian-pragmatist approach to causation as an alternative to existing metaphysical approaches. Within this pragmatist approach, metaphysical questions about causation are reinterpreted as practical questions about the choice of causal frameworks. To motivate and justify this new approach, I argue that, in emphasizing the priority of ontology over methodology, metaphysical approaches to causation fail to adequately capture the interplay between causal ontology and causal methodology in scientific practice. In contrast, the Carnapian approach provides a more appealing alternative that emphasizes the mutual dependence and ‘balance’ between the two in an ongoing process of scientific inquiry. I use the recent controversy over ‘What counts as a cause’ in statistical causal inference as a case study to demonstrate how the Carnapian approach can help us better understand the role of ontological issues in methodological practices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
因果关系本体论:卡纳普实用主义方法
长期以来,因果关系的形而上学家们一直在争论原始因果模式(如力量)的存在,还原论者和现实论者采取了对立的立场。然而,尽管我们早已意识到鲁道夫-卡尔纳普(Rudolf Carnap)对形而上学的批判,却很少有人关注形而上学问题本身的合法性。本文对因果关系提出了一种(广义的)卡尔纳普实用主义方法,以替代现有的形而上学方法。在这种实用主义方法中,关于因果关系的形而上学问题被重新解释为关于因果框架选择的实用问题。为了激励和证明这种新方法的合理性,我认为,形而上学的因果关系方法强调本体论优先于方法论,因而未能充分把握科学实践中因果关系本体论与因果关系方法论之间的相互作用。相比之下,卡尔纳普方法提供了一个更有吸引力的替代方案,它强调了在持续的科学探索过程中两者之间的相互依存和 "平衡"。我以最近关于统计因果推理中 "什么算作原因 "的争议为案例,说明卡尔纳普方法如何帮助我们更好地理解本体论问题在方法论实践中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal for General Philosophy of Science
Journal for General Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Journal for General Philosophy of Science is a forum for the discussion of a variety of attitudes concerning the philosophy of science. It has as its subject matter the philosophical, especially methodological, ontological, epistemological, anthropological, and ethical foundations of the individual sciences. Particular emphasis is laid on bringing both the natural, the cultural, and the technical sciences into a philosophical context, within which the historical presuppositions and conditions of the current problems of the philosophy of science are also included in the discussion. The Journal for General Philosophy of Science has been successful in its attempt to serve as a forum that bridges the gap between the different sciences, especially the natural, cultural, and social sciences. One of its purposes is to discuss and contrast the common as well as the different specific methodological and philosophical foundations of the individual sciences, taking into account all currently relevant positions of the philosophy of science. In recent years considerable insight has been gained into the problems of current philosophy of science by considering the historical dimension of the sciences. This is why more intensive efforts will be made in the future towards the integration of historical and systematic considerations. The journal contains:articles discussions reports on the state of the philosophy of science in individual countries reviews a bibliography of the major journals in the field of the history and philosophy of science. The journal is of interest to philosophers, especially philosophers of science, as well as to scholars from the field of the natural, cultural, social and technical sciences who are interested in becoming aware of the philosophical implications of their disciplines and in being stimulated by the transfer of methods, leading ideas, concepts and theories from other fields. As of 2015, Journal for General Philosophy of Science will accept submissions online via the Editorial Manager system.  Authors are encouraged to use this format in submitting to the journal to ensure that your article is processed in a timely fashion.
期刊最新文献
Induction and the Principles of Love in Francis Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature Back to Reichenbach Deep Learning-Aided Research and the Aim-of-Science Controversy On Semirealism, Realism More Generally, and Underlying Epistemic Stances James Nguyen and Roman Frigg: Scientific Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022, 90pp., €21.23 (Paperback), ISBN: 9781009009157
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1