Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T02:22:54.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Confirmation of Common Component Causes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Malcolm R. Forster
Malcolm R. Forster*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is an interesting problem concerning component causes posed by Cartwright (1983) in her book How the Laws of Physics Lie, which is easily explained in terms of a simple example. Consider a cup sitting on the table. Why doesn’t it move? The explanation given by Newtonian mechanics is that the cup is experiencing two forces-the downward force of gravity and the upward ‘elastic’ force of the table-and these two forces exactly cancel to produce a zero resultant force. This zero resultant force then produces a zero acceleration, which ‘explains’ why the cup doesn’t move. This rather simple, yet typical, example of theoretical explanation raises a surprisingly deep puzzle: What justification is there for believing in the existence of the component forces if they are redundant to the explanation? For it does not really matter what size the component forces are so long as their resultant is zero.

Type
Part I. Confirmation and Scientific Laws
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 2 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1978). “Fairy Tales vs. an Ongoing Story: Ramsey’s Neglected Argument of Scientific Realism.” Philosophical Studies 33:195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, M. (1986a). “Unification and Scientific Realism Revisited,” PSA 1986, Volume 1. Edited by Fine, Arthur and Machamer, Peter East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Forster, M. (1986b). “Statistical Covariance as a Measure of Phylogenetic Relationship.” Cladistics 2: 297–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, M. (1988a). “Unification, Explanation, and the Composition of Causes in Newtonian Mechanics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, March 1988, pp. 55–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, M. (1988b). “Sober’s principle of Common Cause and the Problem of Comparing Incomplete Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science, December 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1981). “Theoretical Explanation.” In Time, Reduction and Reality. Edited by Healey, R. A., pp. 1–16.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980). Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956). The Direction of Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. (1977). Inference, Method and Decision. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. (1983). “Why Glymour Is a Bayesian.” In Testing Scientific Theories. Edited by Earman, J., pp. 69–97. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar