Singular Causal Statements

Abstract

In 'Causal Relations Davidson claims that singular causal statements express an extensional relation between particular events rather than an intensional relation between facts. One consequence Davidson draws is a reassessment of the traditional problem of selecting 'the' cause from various conditions of a given effect. Gerald Vision2 has recently challenged Davidson's account. While this challenge seems in the end to fail, it does bring out interesting consequences of that account. The traditional problem might be loosely described in the following way. Singular causal statements, it is claimed, nominate as 'the cause', of a certain effect what we might call 'the significant partial cause', which is only one aspect of the causal situation in which many causal aspects are involved in the production of the effect in question. The striking of the match, the dryness of the match, the presence of oxygen are all involved in the production of the flame, yet we say the striking caused the lighting of the match. It is generally agreed that determining what is causally involved in bringing about an effect (the total cause) is a purely scientific issue, whereas selecting the cause (the significant partial cause) is not. Rather the latter depends on such practical considerations as which aspect we can most readily control or such contextual considerations as how this case differs from cases where the effect is not evident (i.e. from matches that are not in flames). Davidson is at pains to show that this picture of selecting one partial cause from amongst a set of such events that constitute a total cause is at least sometimes incorrect. On the other hand, he pays little attention to the fact that the picture fits some situations well enough even on his own event-analysis. To bring this out we need to distinguish two kinds of case.