Hitchcock’s treatment of singular and general causation

Minds and Machines 16 (3):277-287 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Hitchcock (2001a) argues that the distinction between singular and general causation conflates the two distinctions ‘actual causation vs. causal tendencies’ and ‘wide vs. narrow causation’. Based on a recent regularity account of causation I will show that Hitchcock’s introduction of the two distinctions is an unnecessary multiplication of causal concepts.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,105

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Against the Contrastive Account of Singular Causation.Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen - 2012 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (1):115-143.
Causal reasoning.Christoph Hoerl - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 152 (2):167-179.
The Facts of Causation. D. H. Mellor.Phil Dowe - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (1):162-170.
Three Concepts of Actual Causation.Enno Fischer - 2024 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 75 (1):77-98.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
108 (#193,360)

6 months
11 (#305,599)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

The cement of the universe.John Leslie Mackie - 1974 - Oxford,: Clarendon Press.
Causal relations.Donald Davidson - 1967 - Journal of Philosophy 64 (21):691-703.
Probabilistic Causality.Ellery Eells - 1991 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
The Cement of the Universe.John Earman & J. L. Mackie - 1976 - Philosophical Review 85 (3):390.
Causal Relations.Donald Davidson - 2004 - In Tim Crane & Katalin Farkas (eds.), Metaphysics: a guide and anthology. New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 19 references / Add more references