Causality: Metaphysics and Methods

Abstract

How ought we learn causal relationships? While Popper advocated a hypothetico-deductive logic of causal discovery, inductive accounts are currently in vogue. Many inductive approaches depend on the causal Markov condition as a fundamental assumption. This condition, I maintain, is not universally valid, though it is justifiable as a default assumption. In which case the results of the inductive causal learning procedure must be tested before they can be accepted. This yields a synthesis of the hypothetico-deductive and inductive accounts, which forms the focus of this paper. I discuss the justification of this synthesis and draw an analogy between objective Bayesianism and the account of causal learning presented here.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
58 (#264,822)

6 months
6 (#417,196)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Interpreting causality in the health sciences.Federica Russo & Jon Williamson - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2):157 – 170.
Causation in the social sciences: Evidence, inference, and purpose.Julian Reiss - 2009 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (1):20-40.
Generic versus single-case causality: the case of autopsy. [REVIEW]Jon Williamson - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):47-69.
Response to Glymour. [REVIEW]Jon Williamson - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):857-860.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references