{"title":"遗传学和物理学中的对比因果关系","authors":"E. Weber, Inge De Bal","doi":"10.21825/philosophica.82123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jonathan Schaffer has argued that a contrastive causal ontology is beneficial in juridical contexts: lawyers and judges should treat the causal relation as a quaternary relation, not as binary one. In this paper we investigate to what extent a contrastive causal ontology is beneficial in genetics and in physics. We conclude that it is beneficial in these scientific domains. We also point out that the nature of the benefit differs in the three context (law, genetics, physics) that we discuss.","PeriodicalId":36843,"journal":{"name":"Argumenta Philosophica","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrastive causation in genetics and in physics\",\"authors\":\"E. Weber, Inge De Bal\",\"doi\":\"10.21825/philosophica.82123\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Jonathan Schaffer has argued that a contrastive causal ontology is beneficial in juridical contexts: lawyers and judges should treat the causal relation as a quaternary relation, not as binary one. In this paper we investigate to what extent a contrastive causal ontology is beneficial in genetics and in physics. We conclude that it is beneficial in these scientific domains. We also point out that the nature of the benefit differs in the three context (law, genetics, physics) that we discuss.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumenta Philosophica\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumenta Philosophica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82123\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumenta Philosophica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
Jonathan Schaffer has argued that a contrastive causal ontology is beneficial in juridical contexts: lawyers and judges should treat the causal relation as a quaternary relation, not as binary one. In this paper we investigate to what extent a contrastive causal ontology is beneficial in genetics and in physics. We conclude that it is beneficial in these scientific domains. We also point out that the nature of the benefit differs in the three context (law, genetics, physics) that we discuss.