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.
Highlights
Steglich-Petersen considers the following example to show the incompleteness of binary causal claims: critica / C140Cespedes / 1
(2) Susan stealing the bicycle caused her arrest. This binary statement is semantically incomplete, because it can refer to different alternatives, which have the form of contrastive causal claims: (3) Susan stealing the bicycle rather than purchasing it caused her arrest
Steglich-Petersen argues that the truth condition of a binary causal claim, called the primary counterfactual, is based on another counterfactual conditional, the secondary counterfactual, whose antecedent describes what happens in the nearest world instead of A, which explains why B does not occur
Summary
Steglich-Petersen considers the following example to show the incompleteness of binary causal claims: critica / C140Cespedes / 1 This binary statement is semantically incomplete, because it can refer to different alternatives, which have the form of contrastive causal claims: (3) Susan stealing the bicycle rather than purchasing it caused her arrest. Steglich-Petersen argues that the truth condition of a binary causal claim, called the primary counterfactual, is based on another counterfactual conditional, the secondary counterfactual, whose antecedent describes what happens in the nearest world instead of A, which explains why B does not occur.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
