Counterfactual Theory Of Causation Research Articles

Counterfactuals, causation and the asymmetry of time

Among the prominent aspects of our experience of time is its asymmetry which can be pointed at by using somewhat vague notions of fixity of the past and openness of the future. Among the influential attempts to explain this asymmetry is an analysis by David Lewis, based on his influential similarity semantic analysis of counterfactual conditionals. I examine Lewis? attempt and criticisms it was exposed to in the literature. By focusing on the criticism by Penelope Mackie, I show that Lewis? analysis can be fortified in a way consistent with his basic project so that it withstands the examined criticisms. However, one important consequence of this fortification is that its success depends on his counterfactual theory of causation. This means that every (successful) criticism of Lewis? theory of causation is a fortiori a (successful) criticism of his analysis of the relevant asymmetry of time.

Tutorial: A nontechnical explanation of the counterfactual definition of effect modification and interaction

Effect modification and interaction are important concepts for answering causal questions about interdependent effects of two (or more) exposures on some outcome of interest. Although conceptually alike and often mistakenly regarded as synonymous, effect modification and interaction actually refer to slightly different concepts when considered from a causal perspective. Their subtle yet relevant distinction lies in how the interplay between exposures is defined and the causal roles attributed to the exposures involved in the effect modification and interaction. To gain more insight into similarities and differences between the concepts of effect modification and interaction, the counterfactual theory of causation, albeit complicated, can be very helpful. Therefore, this article presents a nontechnical explanation of the counterfactual definition of effect modification and interaction. Essentially, effect modification and interaction are reflections of the reality and complexity of multicausality. The causal effect of an exposure of interest often depends on the levels of other exposures (effect modification) or causal effects of other exposures (interaction). Consequently, exposure effects should not be regarded in isolation but in combination. Understanding the underlying principles of effect modification and interaction on a conceptual level enables researchers to better anticipate, detect, and interpret these causal phenomena when setting up, analyzing, and reporting findings of (clinical) epidemiological studies. Effect modification and interaction are not biases to be avoided but properties of causal effects that ought to be unveiled. Hence, evidence for effect modification and interaction needs to be shown in order to delineate in whom and which instances causal effects occur.

Counterfactual theories of causation and the problem of large causes

As is well-known, David Lewis’ counterfactual theory of causation is subject to serious counterexamples in ‘exceptional’ cases. What has not received due attention in the literature so far is that Lewis’ theory fails to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for causation in ‘ordinary’ cases, too. In particular, the theory suffers from the ‘problem of large causes’. It is argued that this problem may be fixed by imposing a minimization constraint, whilst this solution brings along substantial costs as well. In particular, a precise formulation of minimization requires defining an ‘essential part of an event’ and/or an ‘essential subevent’. Although the possibility of such a definition is ultimately left open, some doubts are raised on whether the counterfactualists’ resources are fit for this purpose, and whether the challenge can be met without substantially departing from Lewis’ intention, which was to provide a reductive account of causation.

Applying D. K. Lewis’s Counterfactual Theory of Causation to the Philosophy of Historiography

A theory of causation suitable for historiography must accommodate the many types of causal claims historians make. In this paper, I examine the advantages of applying D. K. Lewis’s counterfactual theory of causation to the philosophy of historiography. I contend that Lewis’s possible world semantics offers a superior framework for making sense of historical causation, and that it lays the foundation for historians to look at history as causal series of events, remaining agnostic as to whether there may be historical regularities or laws. Lewis’s theory can also accommodate important notions often used by historians, such as absences as causes, historical necessity and contingency, and the role they play in the formulation of historical counterfactuals.

Causes and Counterparts

It follows from David Lewis's counterpart-theoretic analysis of modality and his counterfactual theory of causation that causal claims are relativized to a set of counterpart relations. Call this Shlewis's view. I show how Shlewis's view can provide attractively unified solutions to similar modal and causal puzzles. I then argue that Shlewis's view is better motivated, by his own lights, than the view Lewis actually held, and also better motivated than a similar approach which relativizes causal claims to sets of ‘contrast events’.

Events and their counterparts

This paper argues that a counterpart-theoretic treatment of events, combined with a counterfactual theory of causation (call this combination CCT), can help resolve three puzzles from the causation literature. First, CCT traces the apparent contextual shifts in our causal attributions to shifts in the counterpart relation which obtains in those contexts. Second, being sensitive to shifts in the counterpart relation can help diagnose what goes wrong in certain prominent examples where the transitivity of causation appears to fail. Third, CCT can help us resurrect the much-maligned fragility response to the problems of late pre-emption by understanding fragility in counterpart-theoretic terms. Some reasons to prefer this CCT approach to rivals are discussed.

Why the Counterfactualist Should Still Worry About Downward Causation

In Zhong (Philos Phenomenol Res 83:129–147, 2011; Analysis 72:75–85, 2012), I argued that, contrary to what many people might expect, the counterfactual theory of causation will generate (rather than solve) the exclusion problem. Recently some philosophers raise an incisive objection to this argument. They contend that my argument fails as it equivocates between different notions of a physical realizer (see Christensen and Kallestrup in Analysis 72:513–517, 2012). However, I find that their criticism doesn’t threaten the central idea of my view. In this paper, I make two separate responses that appeal to two unequivocal notions of physical realizers, respectively. I aim to show that a modified argument that uses either notion would work.

Contextualising Causation Part I

AbstractThis is the first instalment of a two‐part paper on the counterfactual theory of causation. It is well known that this theory is ridden with counterexamples. Specifically, the following four features of the theory suffer from problems: it understands causation as a relation between events; counterfactual dependence is understood using a metric of similarity among possible worlds; it defines a non-discriminatory concept of causation; and it understands causation as transitive.A number of philosophers have recently proposed that causation is contrastive because making contrasts explicit defuses counterexamples. A contrastive causal claim has the following form: C rather than C* causes E rather than E*, where C* and E* are alternative or contrast events. In this paper, I show that making contrasts explicit does indeed defuse some counterexamples. However, I also argue that the examples discussed in the literature all share a common feature, viz. that the original causal judgement is ambiguous in one way or another. Contrasting does not help with counterexamples that do not have this feature. Part II of this paper then takes up the hard cases.

Counterfactuals, Autonomy and Downward Causation: Reply to Zhong

In recent papers, Lei Zhong argues that the autonomy solution to the causal exclusion problem is unavailable to anyone that endorses the counterfactual model of causation. The linchpin of his argument is that the counterfactual theory entails the downward causation principle, which conflicts with the autonomy solution. In this note I argue that the counterfactual theory does not entail the downward causation principle, so it is possible to advocate for the autonomy solution to the causal exclusion problem from within the counterfactual theory of causation.

Getting rid of interventions

According to James Woodward’s influential interventionist account of causation, X is a cause of Y iff, roughly, there is a possible intervention on X that changes Y. Woodward requires that interventions be merely logically possible. I will argue for two claims against this modal character of interventions: First, merely logically possible interventions are dispensable for the semantic project of providing an account of the meaning of causal statements. If interventions are indeed dispensable, the interventionist theory collapses into (some sort of) a counterfactual theory of causation. Thus, the interventionist theory is not tenable as a theory of causation in its own right. Second, if one maintains that merely logically possible interventions are indispensable, then interventions with this modal character lead to the fatal result that interventionist counterfactuals are evaluated inadequately. Consequently, interventionists offer an inadequate theory of causation. I suggest that if we are concerned with explicating causal concepts and stating the truth-conditions of causal claims we best get rid of Woodwardian interventions.

Lewis’ Modal Realism and Absence Causation

A major criticism of David Lewis’ counterfactual theory of causation is that it allows too many things to count as causes, especially since Lewis allows, in addition to events, absences to be causes as well. Peter Menzies has advanced this concern under the title “the problem of profligate causation.” In this paper, I argue that the problem of profligate causation provides resources for exposing a tension between Lewis’ acceptance of absence causation and his modal realism. The result is a different problem of profligate causation—one that attacks the internal consistency of Lewisian metaphysics rather than employing common sense judgments or intuitions that conflict with Lewis’ extensive list of causes.

Can Counterfactuals Solve the Exclusion Problem?

A quite popular approach to solving the Causal Exclusion Problem is to adopt a counterfactual theory of causation. In this paper, I distinguish three versions of the Causal Exclusion Argument. I argue that the counterfactualist approach can block the first two exclusion arguments, because the Causal Inheritance Principle and the Upward Causation Principle upon which the two arguments are based respectively are problematic from the perspective of the counterfactual account of causation. However, I attempt to show that the counterfactualist approach is unable to refute a sophisticated version (i.e. the third version) of the exclusion argument in that the Downward Causation Principle, a premise of the third exclusion argument, is actually implied by the counterfactual theory of causation. Therefore, even if other theories of causation might help the non‐reductive physicalist to solve the exclusion problem, the counterfactual theory of causation cannot.

A Comparison of Nine Counterfactual Theories of Causation Using Seven Examples.

The article compares and evaluates nine last-decade counterfactual theories of singular causation, which were either created or inspired by David Lewis, Joseph Y. Halpern and Judea Pearl and presented in the texts of six other authors. Some differences between those theories that have not yet been described in literature are shown in the article. It is argued that the majority of those theories analyze intuitively similar examples in different ways. In that respect, those theories impose distinctions which, according to the folk theory of causation, are (and should be) absent.

How Effects Depend on their Causes, Why Causal Transitivity Fails, and Why we Care About Causation

Despite recent efforts to improve on counterfactual theories of causation, failures to explain how effects depend on their causes are still manifest in a variety of cases. In particular, theories that do a decent job explaining cases of causal preemption have problems accounting for cases of causal intransitivity. Moreover, the increasing complexity of the counterfactual accounts makes it difficult to see why the concept of causation would be such a central part of our cognition. In this paper, I propose an account of our causal thinking that not only explains the hitherto puzzling variety of causal judgments, but also makes it intelligible why we would employ such an elusive concept.

Connection and Influence: A Process Theory of Causation

A combination of process and counterfactual theories of causation is proposed with the aim of preserving the strengths of each of the approaches while avoiding their shortcomings. The basis for the combination, or hybrid, view is the need, common to both accounts, of imposing a stability requirement on the causal relation.

Causation, Pluralism and Responsibility

Counterfactual theories of causation have had difficulty in delivering the intuitively correct verdicts for cases of causation involving preemption, without generating further counterexamples. Hall (2004) has offered a pluralistic theory of causatio n, accor ding to which there are two concepts of causation: counterfactual dependence and production. Hall’s theory does deliver the correct verdicts for many of the problematic kinds of preemption. It also dea ls succ essfully with cases of causation by omission, which ha ve proved stubborn counterexamples to physical process theories of causation. Hall’s theory therefore appears to be a significant improvement on extant univocal theories of causation, both physical and counterfactual. In this paper I present a serie s of countere xamples to Hall’s theory. I also describe cases in which our causal judgments appear to be sensitive to moral considerations. It does not seem likely that conventional theories of causation, which attempt to situate causation in an ob jective metaphysical pictu re of the world, will ever accord with our intuitions in such cases. Finally, the notion of responsibility is considered, but rejected as an illuminating primitive for analyzing causation.

Estimating causal effects

Although one goal of aetiologic epidemiology is to estimate ‘the true effect’ of an exposure on disease occurrence, epidemiologists usually do not precisely specify what ‘true effect’ they want to estimate. We describe how the counterfactual theory of causation, originally developed in philosophy and statistics, can be adapted to epidemiological studies to provide precise answers to the questions ‘What is a cause?’, ‘How should we measure effects?’ and ‘What effect measure should epidemiologists estimate in aetiologic studies?’ We also show that the theory of counterfactuals (1) provides a general framework for designing and analysing aetiologic studies; (2) shows that we must always depend on a substitution step when estimating effects, and therefore the validity of our estimate will always depend on the validity of the substitution; (3) leads to precise definitions of effect measure, confounding, confounder, and effect-measure modification; and (4) shows why effect measures should be expected to vary across populations whenever the distribution of causal factors varies across the populations.

Estimating causal effects

Although one goal of aetiologic epidemiology is to estimate ‘the true effect’ of an exposure on disease occurrence, epidemiologists usually do not precisely specify what ‘true effect’ they want to estimate. We describe how the counterfactual theory of causation, originally developed in philosophy and statistics, can be adapted to epidemiological studies to provide precise answers to the questions ‘What is a cause?’, ‘How should we measure effects?’ and ‘What effect measure should epidemiologists estimate in aetiologic studies?’ We also show that the theory of counterfactuals (1) provides a general framework for designing and analysing aetiologic studies; (2) shows that we must always depend on a substitution step when estimating effects, and therefore the validity of our estimate will always depend on the validity of the substitution; (3) leads to precise definitions of effect measure, confounding, confounder, and effect-measure modification; and (4) shows why effect measures should be expected to vary across populations whenever the distribution of causal factors varies across the populations.

The Intransitivity of Causation Revealed in Equations and Graphs

[Introduction] We live in exciting times. By 'we' I mean philosophers studying the nature of causation. The past decade or so has witnessed a flurry of philosophical activity aimed at cracking this nut, and, surprisingly, real progress has been made. Two developments are especially worthy of note. First, there has been a resurgence of interest in the counterfactual theory of causation, given its best-known formulation by David Lewis. Second, there has been increasing philosophical interest in the techniques of causal modeling developed and employed within fields such as econometrics, epidemiology, and artificial intelligence. These two developments have been largely independent and addressed to different sorts of problems. Work in the counterfactual tradition has been primarily concerned with issues involving token or singular causation, while work in the second tradition has tended to focus on issues concerning type-level or general causation.

Freedom, Causation, and the Consequence Argument

The problem of analyzing causation and the problem of incompatibilism versus compatibilism are largely distinct. Yet, this paper will show that there are some theories of causation that a compatibilist should not endorse: namely, counterfactual theories, specifically the one developed by David Lewis and a newer, amended version of his account. Endorsing either of those accounts of causation undercuts the main compatibilist reply to a powerful argument for incompatibilism. Conversely, the argument of this paper has the following message for incompatibilists: you have reason to consider defending a counterfactual theory of causation.