Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T00:34:12.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanation, Causality, and Counterfactuals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Evan K. Jobe
Evan K. Jobe*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Texas Tech University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop an adequate version of the D-N theory of explanation for particular events and to show how the resulting D-N model can be used as a tool in articulating a regularity theory of causation and an analysis of the truth conditions for counterfactual conditionals. Starting with a basic model that is largely the product of other workers in this field, two new restrictions are formulated in order to construct a version of D-N explanation that does not yield the counterintuitive results that have plagued all earlier versions. An additional condition is then developed that is indispensable for utilizing the D-N model as a tool in formulating a regularity theory of causation. Finally, it is shown how a suitable model of potential D-N explanation facilitates the formulation of a theory of counterfactual conditionals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 357 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

REFERENCES

Burks, A. (1977), Chance, Cause, Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cupples, B. (1977), “Three Types of Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 44: 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cupples, B. (1980), “Four Types of Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 47: 626–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1963), “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”, The Journal of Philosophy 60: 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, R.; Kaplan, D.; and Montague, R. (1961), “Hempel and Oppenheim on Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 28: 418–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, P. (1971), “Tachyons, Backwards Causation, and Freedom,” in PSA 1970: In Memory of Rudolph Carnap, Buck, R. and Cohen, R. (eds.). Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 8. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1978), “Two Flagpoles are More Paradoxical Than One”, Philosophy of Science 45: 118–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. (1965), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1967), William James Lectures, Harvard University (unpublished).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., and Oppenheim, P. (1948), “Studies in the Logic of Explanation,” Philosophy of Science 15: 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobe, E. (1976), “A Puzzle Concerning D-N Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 43: 542–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1961), “Explanation Revisited”, Philosophy of Science 28: 429–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1981), “Explanatory Unification”, Philosophy of Science 48: 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973), Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, T. (1977), “On an Aristotelian Model of Scientific Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 44: 159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, W. T. (1957), “Reexamination of the Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals”, The Journal of Philosophy 54: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1970), “Statistical Explanation”, in The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, Colodny, R. (ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. (1975), “Causation as Explanation”, Noûs 9: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1958), “Counterfactuals, Dispositions, and the Causal Modalities”, in Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem, Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G. (eds.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar