对因果关系对比理论的辩护

IF 0.1 4区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA Pub Date : 2015-12-07 DOI:10.22201/IIFS.18704905E.2015.503

E. Céspedes

{"title":"对因果关系对比理论的辩护","authors":"E. Céspedes","doi":"10.22201/IIFS.18704905E.2015.503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An argument proposed by Steglich-Petersen (2012) establishes that while contrastive causation can be applied to general causation and causal explanation, it is a mistake to consider it in cases of singular causation. I attempt to show that there is no mistake. Steglich-Petersen’s argument does not seem to be strong enough and is actually circular. Furthermore, I briefly argue that even if we take his argument to be valid, there is still a response from the side of contrastive causation.","PeriodicalId":43820,"journal":{"name":"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA","volume":"5 1","pages":"93-99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A defense of the contrastive theory of causation\",\"authors\":\"E. Céspedes\",\"doi\":\"10.22201/IIFS.18704905E.2015.503\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An argument proposed by Steglich-Petersen (2012) establishes that while contrastive causation can be applied to general causation and causal explanation, it is a mistake to consider it in cases of singular causation. I attempt to show that there is no mistake. Steglich-Petersen’s argument does not seem to be strong enough and is actually circular. Furthermore, I briefly argue that even if we take his argument to be valid, there is still a response from the side of contrastive causation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43820,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"93-99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22201/IIFS.18704905E.2015.503\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CRITICA-REVISTA HISPANOAMERICANA DE FILOSOFIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22201/IIFS.18704905E.2015.503","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

Steglich-Petersen(2012)提出的一个论点认为，虽然对比因果关系可以应用于一般因果关系和因果解释，但在单一因果关系的情况下考虑对比因果关系是错误的。我试图证明没有错。Steglich-Petersen的论点似乎不够有力，实际上是循环的。此外，我简要地论证了，即使我们认为他的论证是有效的，仍然有一个来自对比因果关系方面的回应。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

A defense of the contrastive theory of causation

An argument proposed by Steglich-Petersen (2012) establishes that while contrastive causation can be applied to general causation and causal explanation, it is a mistake to consider it in cases of singular causation. I attempt to show that there is no mistake. Steglich-Petersen’s argument does not seem to be strong enough and is actually circular. Furthermore, I briefly argue that even if we take his argument to be valid, there is still a response from the side of contrastive causation.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊