{"title":"The Limits of Causality","authors":"L. Caruana","doi":"10.17990/axistudies/2020_04_031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades, much literature on causality has focused on causal processes and causal reasoning in the natural sciences. According to a relatively new trend however, such research on causality remains insufficient because of its refusal to accept a certain degree of pluralism within the concept, a pluralism that is evident in how we use ideas of cause and effect in everyday life. I will build on work in this latter trend, following philosophers like G. E. M. Anscombe and N. Cartwright. I explore the limits of the concept of causality by determining the extent to which our ideas can remain consistent as we stretch this concept along two dimensions, one concerning the maximizing of the effect and the other the maximizing of explanatory depth. Dealing with the cause of the universe, such an investigation touches upon some issues in current empirical cosmology and revisits some classic arguments regarding philosophy of religion and the Platonic notion of participation. The results indicate that the use of current conceptual, logical and analytic tools can deliver new insights that are useful especially for those interested in how causality in the natural sciences links with causality in everyday life.","PeriodicalId":48557,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17990/axistudies/2020_04_031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For decades, much literature on causality has focused on causal processes and causal reasoning in the natural sciences. According to a relatively new trend however, such research on causality remains insufficient because of its refusal to accept a certain degree of pluralism within the concept, a pluralism that is evident in how we use ideas of cause and effect in everyday life. I will build on work in this latter trend, following philosophers like G. E. M. Anscombe and N. Cartwright. I explore the limits of the concept of causality by determining the extent to which our ideas can remain consistent as we stretch this concept along two dimensions, one concerning the maximizing of the effect and the other the maximizing of explanatory depth. Dealing with the cause of the universe, such an investigation touches upon some issues in current empirical cosmology and revisits some classic arguments regarding philosophy of religion and the Platonic notion of participation. The results indicate that the use of current conceptual, logical and analytic tools can deliver new insights that are useful especially for those interested in how causality in the natural sciences links with causality in everyday life.
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
因果关系的极限
几十年来,许多关于因果关系的文献都集中在自然科学中的因果过程和因果推理上。然而,根据一种相对较新的趋势,这种对因果关系的研究仍然不足,因为它拒绝接受概念中一定程度的多元性,这种多元性在我们如何在日常生活中使用因果关系的概念中是显而易见的。我将以后一种趋势为基础,追随g.e.m.安斯库姆(g.e.m. Anscombe)和N. Cartwright等哲学家。我通过确定我们的想法可以在多大程度上保持一致来探索因果关系概念的局限性,当我们沿着两个维度扩展这个概念时,一个是关于效果的最大化,另一个是关于解释深度的最大化。这一研究涉及到宇宙的起因,触及了当前经验宇宙学中的一些问题,并重新审视了一些关于宗教哲学和柏拉图参与概念的经典论点。结果表明,使用当前的概念、逻辑和分析工具可以提供新的见解,特别是对于那些对自然科学中的因果关系如何与日常生活中的因果关系联系感兴趣的人来说,这些见解非常有用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences is devoted to historical, sociological, philosophical and ethical aspects of the life and environmental sciences, of the sciences of mind and behaviour, and of the medical and biomedical sciences and technologies. Contributions are from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions; we encourage both specialist articles, and articles combining historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches; and we favour works of interest to scientists and medics as well as to specialists in the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences.
期刊最新文献
A Ordem do Universo no Séc. XII: Harmonia e Epistemologia na Tradição Neoplatónica Postmodern Theory with Historical Intent Tales of Im/mobility A Conceptual Map for Twenty-First-Century Philosophy of History In Defence of a Humanistically Oriented Historiography
×
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