[JOCR 8.3 (2009) 277-293] (Print) ISSN 1476-7430 Doi: 10.1558/Jocr.V8i3.277 (Online) ISSN 1572-5138 DOUBLE PREVENTION and POWERS

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

[JOCR 8.3 (2009) 277-293] (Print) ISSN 1476-7430 Doi: 10.1558/Jocr.V8i3.277 (Online) ISSN 1572-5138 DOUBLE PREVENTION and POWERS [ JOCR 8.3 (2009) 277-293] (print) ISSN 1476-7430 doi: 10.1558/jocr.v8i3.277 (online) ISSN 1572-5138 DOUBLE PREVENTION AND POWERS by STEPHEN MUMFORD1 University of Nottingham [email protected] and RANI LILL ANJUM University of Tromsø and University of Nottingham [email protected] Abstract. Does A cause B simply if A prevents what would have prevented B? Such a case is known as double prevention: where we have the pre- vention of a prevention. One theory of causation is that A causes B when B counterfactually depends on A and, as there is such a dependence, proponents of the view must rule that double prevention is causation. However, if double prevention is causation, it means that causation can be an extrinsic matter, that the cause and effect need not be connected by a continuous chain of events, that there can be causation by absence, and that there can be causation at a distance. All of these implications jar with strong intuitions we have about the nature of causation. There is, on the other hand, a theory of causation based on an ontology of real dispositions, where causation involves the passing around of pow- ers. This theory in contrast entails that double prevention is not causa- tion and, on this issue, it can claim a victory over the counterfactual dependence account. Keywords: causation, powers, prevention 1 Address for both authors: Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, Not- tingham NG7 2RD, UK. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2009, Unit 6, The Village, 101 Amies Street, London SW11 2JW. 278 STEPHEN MUMFORD & RANI LILL ANJUM Introduction Is A a cause of B simply in virtue of its preventing what would have been a pre- venter of B? Such cases are known as double preventions. They involve the pre- vention of a prevention. What is arguably the leading theory of causation among contemporary analytic metaphysicians – the counterfactual dependence view – rules that double prevention is causation.2 The view has it that A is a cause of B when B counterfactually depends on A, including if it does so via a chain of counterfactual dependencies. This is offered as a reductive analysis. There is nothing more to causation than a counterfactual dependence between events (strictly, the ancestral of the relation of counterfactual dependence: a clause that we hereafter take for granted). Double prevention does seem to involve this kind of counterfactual dependence. Had the ‘cause’, A, not occurred, it would not have prevented something happening that would in turn have pre- vented the ‘effect’ B. If A had not been the case, B would not have been the case. Therefore, for Lewisian theories, double prevention counts as causation. Notwithstanding the appeals of a counterfactual dependence theory of causation, our intuitions on double prevention cases are not so clear cut. There are some grounds on which we feel reluctant to grant double preven- tions as causes. In this paper, those grounds will be explored. It will be argued that, as we have no firm intuitions, it would be wrong to take it for granted that double prevention is causation. On the contrary, if there were to be a theory of causation that could deal with all the standard causal cases but with- out entailing that double prevention is causation, then we should prefer that. There is such a theory, it will be claimed; namely, a theory of causation based on an ontology of real dispositions or causal powers. What is presented here will not be a full argument for the powers view of causation, however. Instead, this paper has the more modest aim of showing that on the issue of double prevention, the powers view produces a more sensible verdict than does the counterfactual dependence view. The powers view rules that double preven- tion for various reasons does not count as causation and thus steers clear of the troublesome consequences that follow from it. Some Examples Lewis’s own example is the simplest. It takes us back to the billiard table that Hume thought offered the ‘perfect instance’ of causation.3 Billiard balls 1 2 D. Lewis, ‘Causation as influence’, in Causation and Counterfactuals, eds J. Collins, N. Hall and L. A. Paul (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), 75–106 (84). 3 D. Hume, ‘Abstract of a treatise of human nature’ (1740), in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. P. Millican (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 133–45. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2009. DOUBLE PREVENTION AND POWERS 279 and 2 collide. Let us call this collision event A. Had they not collided, ball 1 would have continued its motion and collided instead with billiard ball 3, but such a collision did not happen: it was prevented. Given that the colli- sion between 1 and 3 was prevented, 3 was able to continue on its way, where it met with billiard ball 4 in an event we can call collision B. The situation is depicted in Figure 1.4 Figure 1: Standard double prevention case Collision A, Lewis concludes, is a cause of collision B because B counterfac- tually depends on A. A prevents a preventer of B and thus B counterfactually depends on A. There are other examples of double prevention, away from Hume’s billiard table, that may seem less contrived. Ned Hall gives the example of a bomber that has an escort fighter plane.5 An interceptor is sent to shoot down the bomber but it is prevented from doing so when the fighter gets it first. The bomber is then able successfully to complete its mission and it is arguable that a cause of its doing so was the fighter’s double prevention. The fighter prevented the interceptor from pre- venting the bombing. A third example concerns the causes of a fire. One possible cause is arguably a double prevention. A sprinkler system corrodes, let us assume, and because it does so, it can no longer spray water. A small fire then starts and, because the sprinkler system does not work, the building burns down.6 4 From Lewis, ‘Causation as influence’, 84. 5 N. Hall, ‘Two concepts of causation’, in Causation and Counterfactuals, eds J. Collins, N. Hall and L. A. Paul (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), 225–76. 6 D. Davidson, ‘Causal relations’, Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967): 691–703. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2009. 280 STEPHEN MUMFORD & RANI LILL ANJUM Couldn’t one say that the corrosion in the sprinkler system caused the build- ing to burn down? The corrosion prevented something that could have pre- vented the fire taking hold. Once one starts thinking of examples, one can see that double prevention cases are never hard to find. I may know that I am forgetful, for instance, or just in the middle of a very busy day. I ask someone to remind me of a job I must do if I haven’t already done it by lunch. I am thus, as a safety mea- sure, ensuring that my forgetfulness cannot prevent me from performing the task. I am taking steps to prevent a preventer of a task. If as simple a task as requesting a reminder works through double prevention, then clearly it is a very widespread phenomenon. If Double Prevention is Causation Lewis accepts that double prevention cases are cases of causation. Hence the reminder is a cause of me completing my task, shooting down the intercep- tor is a cause of the bombing, the sprinkler’s corrosion causes the building to burn down and collision A is a cause of collision B. It has to be conceded that there is at least some initial intuitive plausibility to such causal claims. If we probe deeper, however, we see that there are some consequences for cau- sation if we include within it cases of double prevention. Lewis accepts these consequences: that causation need not be an intrinsic matter, that there need be no continuous chain from cause to effect, that there can be causation by absence, and that there can be causation at a distance. It shall be argued that none of these are features we should want in genuine causation and that, if they follow from granting that double prevention is causation, then we should not do so. Why would each of these consequences follow? It is easiest to see why if we consider Lewis’s original billiard table example. In the first place, such causation would not be an intrinsic matter. There is an intuition that whether φ causes ϕ is a matter that concerns only φ and ϕ. Nothing at other times and places should determine whether φ caused ϕ. But now it seems we could have many counterexamples to that. Whether A caused B, in this case, depends on other things. Suppose, for instance, there had been an obstruction on the table between collision A and where billiard ball 1 would have met ball 3. Ball 1 could never, in any case, have collided with 3. Hence we could have collision A occur, and collision B occur, just as before, but now A would not be a cause of B. Because of the obstruction, collision A is now no longer a preventer of a preventer of collision B. Ball 1 could never have done any preventing because the obstruction was in the way. © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2009. DOUBLE PREVENTION AND POWERS 281 Thus we can have two cases exactly the same in respect of the occurrence of A and B, but in one A causes B and in the other it doesn’t. In these two situ- ations, A and B are intrinsic duplicates7 and in the first situation A causes B but in the second situation it doesn’t.8 Second, causation does not require a continuous chain of events from cause to effect.
Recommended publications
  • LAWS and LAWLESSNESS Are There Laws of Nature of the Sort Discussed in Much Recent Metaphysics?
    STEPHEN MUMFORD LAWS AND LAWLESSNESS ABSTRACT. I develop a metaphysical position that is both lawless and anti-Humean. The position is called realist lawlessness and contrasts with both Humean lawlessness and nomological realism – the claim that there are laws in nature. While the Humean view also allows no laws, realist lawlessness is not Humean because it accepts some necessary connections in nature between distinct properties. Realism about laws, on the other hand, faces a central dilemma. Either laws govern the behaviour of properties from the outside or from the inside. If the former, an unacceptable quidditist view of properties follows. But no plausible account of laws within properties can be developed that permits a governing role specifically for laws. I conclude in favour of eliminativism about laws. At the conceptual core, the notion of a law in nature is misleading. It is suggestive of an otherwise static world in need of animation. 1. INTRODUCTION: PRIMITIVISM, REDUCTIONISM AND ELIMINATIVISM Are there laws of nature of the sort discussed in much recent metaphysics?1 While these discussions tend to disagree over the nature of such laws, they have in common a commitment to laws being an ineliminable part of an adequate metaphysics for our world. In this paper, I challenge that assumption. The question with which I began can be recast in ways that puts emphasis on the issue of eliminability. Do laws of nature deliver some feature to the world that would otherwise be lacking? Could a world be just like ours if it didn’t have laws? Did God have to create laws once he had created all the other things, such as particulars and universals? And so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic CV Vero
    Giacomo Giannini Department of Philosophy, Durham University, 50 Old Elvet, DH1 3HN, United Kingdom [email protected], [email protected] Areas of Specialisation: Metaphysics. Areas of Competence: Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Logic and Language, Modern Philsosophy. EDUCATION PhD 2016-2020 Durham University Title of Dissertation: ‘Powers for Dispositionalism: A Metaphysical Ground for New Actualism’. Supervisors: Matthew Tugby, Stephen Mumford, and Anna Marmodoro. Viva passed with Minor Corrections. Examiners: Barbara Vetter (FU Berlin), Robin Hendry (Durham). MA Philosophy (Distinction) 2016 Università di Bologna. Title of Dissertation: ‘Truthmakers for Modal Claims’. Supervisors: Walter Cavini and Fabrice Correia (Université de Neuchâtel). BA Philosophy (Distinction) 2014 Università di Bologna Supervisor: Eva Picardi. PUBLICATIONS 2020 “Actualism minus Naturalism Equals Platonism?” co-authored with Matthew Tugby, Philosophical In- quiries, S.I. on Barbara Vetter’s Potentiality (OUP, 2015), 2020. Forthcoming “Formal Causes for Powers” co-authored with Stephen Mumford, to appear in Sandstad & Jansen (eds.) Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Formal Causation, Routledge, 2020. Under Review “Powers, Processes, and Eternalism” (R&R, Erkenntnis) “New Powers for Dispositionalism” (R&R, Synthese) Work in Progress “Universals Cannot Be Manifestations of Powers” 1 “The Source of Independence and the Source of Necessity” “Can There Be a Fundamental Level in a Powerful World?” SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS 2019 Royal Institute of Philosophy Bursary. 2019 Durham Excellence in Learning and Teaching Award. 2016 ARHC - Northern Bridge Doctoral Training Partnership Doctoral Scholarship. 2015 University Award for Academic Excellence (Borsa di studio per merito) for the year 2013/14. 2014 University Award for Academic Excellence (Borsa di studio per merito) for the year 2012/13.
    [Show full text]
  • Essentiality Without Necessity
    Essentiality without Necessity Petter Sandstad Abstract It is widely accepted that if a property is essential then it is necessary. Against this I present numerous counterexamples from biology and chemistry, which fall into two groups: (I) A property is essential to a genus or species, yet some instances of this genus or species do not have this essential property. (II) A property is essential to a genus, yet some species of this genus do not have this essential property. I discuss and reject four minor objections. Then I discuss in depth whether a distinction between constitutive essence and consequential essence is able to handle these counterexamples. I conclude that this distinction is better put as one between (1) the essence, which is necessary, and (2) the essential properties, which are not formally necessary. An essence of an object X is the substantial universal expressed by its real definition. An object X has a property P essentially iff the property P is explanatory and non-trivial, and P follows from the essence of X. Keywords: essential properties, necessary properties, essence, exceptions Kripke, Putnam, and others defended the tenability of essentiality as de re necessity, orthodoxly analysed as something that is true of a thing in all possible worlds where it exists (cf. [27] for a historical survey). According to this modal view, a property is predicated essentially if and only if it is (physically) necessary. If an object X essentially has a property P, then it must have P in all possible worlds where X exists (i.e. it must be necessary).
    [Show full text]
  • References Indrek Reiland Institut Jean Nicod Stephen Mumford And
    Philosophical Review BOOK REVIEWS References Pautz, Adam. Forthcoming. “Propositions and Properties.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Reiland, Indrek. 2013. “Propositional Attitudes and Mental Acts.” Thought 1: 239–45. ———. n.d. “Predication and the Frege-Geach Problem.” Unpublished manuscript. Soames, Scott. 2014. “Cognitive Propositions.” In New Thinking about Propositions, ed. J. King, S. Soames, and J. Speaks, 91–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Indrek Reiland Institut Jean Nicod Philosophical Review, Vol. 126, No. 1, 2017 DOI 10.1215/00318108-3683712 Stephen Mumford and Matthew Tugby, eds., Metaphysics and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. ix þ244 pp. Metaphysics of science, according to Stephen Mumford and Matthew Tugby, is “the metaphysical study of the aspects of reality, such as kindhood, lawhood, causal power, and causation, which impose order on the world and make our scientific disciplines possible ...and also the study of the metaphysical relation- ship between the various scientific disciplines” (14). The editors explicitly rule out such studies as the metaphysics of space, for instance, as mere “specific metaphysical debates as they arise within specific scientific sub-disciplines” (6), such as physics in this case. The core of the metaphysics of science, as they insist, consists solely of those Kantian issues of extreme generality that concern the very possibility of science. The editors seem to suggest that the consideration of these points, as a truly first philosophy, prior to any scientific work, does not require any detailed competence in actual science. And they appear confident that work on kindhood, lawhood, and the relation among the sciences by the first philosopher will not suffer the embarrassing fate of Kant’s a priori pronouncements on the metaphysics of space.1 It is from the armchair, then, that “core” metaphysicians of science proceed to divine the fundamental order of things.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvii (7): 333–359
    L.A. Paul [email protected] Appointments 2021–. Millstone Family Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Cognitive Science, Yale University. 2020–. Professor of Psychology (secondary appointment), Yale University. 2018–2020. Professor of Philosophy and Cognitive Science, Yale University. 2014–2018. Professorial Fellow, Arché Philosophical Research Centre, University of St Andrews. 2016–2018. Eugene Falk Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 2012–2016. Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 2008–2012. Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 2007–2008. Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Arizona. 2001–2007. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Arizona. 2001–2005. Institute for Advanced Studies Research Fellow, Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. 1999–2001. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Yale University. Education Ph.D., 1999, Philosophy, Princeton University. M.A., 1996, Philosophy, Princeton University. M.A., 1996, Philosophy, Antioch University. B.A., 1990, Biology and Chemistry, Antioch College. Areas of Specialization: Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Cognitive Science, Formal Epistemology, Philosophy of Science. 1 Publications Books In Progress. Who will I Become? (provisional title) Under contract with Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2020. Was können wir wissen, bevor wir uns entscheiden?, German translation of “What you can’t expect when you’re expecting”,
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    JOHN HAWTHORNE Updated October 2018 PERSONAL DETAILS: BORN: Birmingham, England May 25, 1964 ADDRESS: USC School of Philosophy 3709 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles CA 90089 EMAIL: [email protected] AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS Part of three person Templeton Award (with Yoaav Isaacs and Aron Wall) for two year project on fine-tuning. Fellow of British Academy (elected 2013) Visiting Fellowship, Australian National University (for Summer 2014) Project Leader of New Insights In Religious Epistemology, a three year project at Oxford funded by the Templeton Foundation (since 2012). Visiting Lecturership, University of Helsinki, 2012. Nelson Visiting Fellow, Michigan University, 2011. Centre for Study of Mind and Language Project at University of Oslo. Project Associate since 2009. Visting Fellowship at University of Oxford 2005. Visiting Astor Lecturer, Oxford 2004. Research Fellowship at Australian National University (1993-1995) Grant from Australian Research Council for work on Grammar of Meaning book, 1991- 1993. Dissertation Prize for best Dissertation at Syracuse University (1991) First Class Honors, University of Manchester (1985) ACADEMIC POSITIONS: 1 Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA (part-time 2013-July 2015, full time from July 2015). Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy, Magdalen College, Oxford, UK (2006 to July 2015) Professor of Philosophy (part-time), Princeton University (2009-2012) Professor, Rutgers University (2001-2006) Professor, Syracuse University (1996-2001) Assistant Professor, Arizona State University (1995-1996) Assistant Professor, University of New South Wales (1991-1995) EDUCATION: PhD. Syracuse University (1991) B.A. in Philosophy and Politics, University of Manchester (1985) 2 PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS Monographs Narrow Content (with Juhani Yli-Vakkuri, Oxford University Press, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook-Mumford-Laws-In-Nature.Pdf
    Laws in Nature What are the laws of nature? Do they control the actions and movements of the other things that exist in our world? Is there a sense in which such laws are real things? Both scientists and philosophers have been attracted by the view that the world contains laws of nature. It is such laws that dictate the behaviour of particulars, rather than any of those things’ intrinsic or internal forces. In this book Stephen Mumford argues against this popular view. He shows that no adequate account has been produced of what such laws in nature would be, or how they would perform the work that has been required of them. In their place, he argues that there are other necessary connections in nature that can do all the work for which we thought laws were needed. This book offers a holistic and connected account of reality in which the world’s elements do not need to be activated or controlled by laws. It is not possible that these elements behave other than they do. The world is more of a jigsaw than a mosaic: its pieces can form only one picture, and laws are no part of it. Stephen Mumford is Reader in Metaphysics in the Department of Philo- sophy at the University of Nottingham. He is the author of Dispositions (1998) and various papers in metaphysics. He is editor of Russell on Meta- physics (2003) and Powers by the late George Molnar (2003). Routledge studies in twentieth-century philosophy 1 The Story of Analytic Philosophy Plot and heroes Edited by Anat Biletzki and Anat Matar 2 Donald Davidson Truth, meaning and knowledge Edited by Urszula M.
    [Show full text]
  • Natures Metaphysics.Pdf
    NATURE’S METAPHYSICS This page intentionally left blank Nature’s Metaphysics Laws and Properties by ALEXANDER BIRD CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York Alexander Bird 2007 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
    [Show full text]
  • 2Nd Annual Meeting
    2nd Annual Meeting, 12-14th May 2005 Derwentside District Council, Leisure Services Division Louisa Centre, Stanley, Co Durham, UK http://www.philosophyofsport.org.uk ! Book of Abstracts Sports’ contribution to well-being........................................................................................3 Andrew Bloodworth.........................................................................................................3 Moral Education and Physical Education: a virtue-theoretical approach .............................4 Rona Brodie, University of Gloucestershire, 1.2.05 .........................................................4 ‘Dehumanisation’ and Performance-Enhancement..............................................................5 Leon Culbertson ...............................................................................................................5 Critical (Realist) Reflection on Policy Enquiry in Sports .......................................................6 Paul Downward, Loughborough University .....................................................................6 The State of Scottish Climbing: bolt or not? .........................................................................6 Philip Ebert and Simon Robertson....................................................................................6 The missing art of sport........................................................................................................7 Andrew Edgar...................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Software Through Metaphysics 1
    Impact case study (REF3b) Institution: University of Nottingham Unit of Assessment: UoA32 Title of case study: Changing Software Through Metaphysics 1. Summary of the impact Mumford and Tallant engaged in consultancy work for IT companies, with both interactions leading to substantial positive benefits for commercial partners. Though ‘early stage impacts’, each consultancy has generated both commercial value and a change in software design of a key product. Through Mumford’s consultancy, research led to significant changes to the development of a database tool developed by a national IT company, FACE Recording and Measurement Systems. This, in turn, has led to a patent application. FACE recently received an offer of $5m (US) for a product based upon the tool. Through Tallant’s consultancy, research led to important changes to the development of an online calendar/event planner tool, developed by a Canadian software company—Time.ly. It also led to Time.ly being able to engage a wider audience. The financial value of such a company depends upon the number of users they can engage. Time.ly were recently valued at $8.4m (CAN). Between them, Mumford and Tallant have made significant contributions to companies or products valued at over £8m. 2. Underpinning research Work carried out between 2005 and 2012 (and published between 2007 and 2013), produced by Professor Stephen Mumford (Nottingham 1995-present) and Dr. Jonathan Tallant (2007-present), has two common strands. The first is that it is perfectly coherent (desirable, even) to treat at least some properties as being irreducibly directed towards some particular state. For instance, Mumford [3.2] has argued that it is central to our best theory of properties that we treat them as dispositions for some state.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Getting Causes from Powers by Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum Jennifer Mckitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 4-2013 Review of Getting Causes from Powers by Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum Jennifer McKitrick University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub Part of the Metaphysics Commons McKitrick, Jennifer, "Review of Getting Causes from Powers by Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum" (2013). Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy. 50. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/50 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. McKitrick in Analysis Reviews 73 (2013) 1 Published in Analysis, Vol 73, Number 2 (April 2013), pp 402–404. digitalcommons.unl.edu doi 10.1093/analys/ant016 Copyright © 2013 Jennifer McKitrick. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust. Used by permission. Book Review Getting Causes from Powers Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum Oxford University Press, 2012. xvi+254 pp. £35.00 reviewed by Jennifer McKitrick University of Nebraska – Lincoln Lincoln, NE, USA [email protected] Some philosophers have suggested that having powers in one’s ontol- ogy has the advantage of providing resources for an account of causa- tion (see Cartwright 1999; Harré 1970; Mill 1843; Whitehead 1929). But what would a theory of causation look like if we assume that powers are real? In Getting Causes from Powers, Mumford and An- jum make what is perhaps the first sustained attempt to answer that question.
    [Show full text]
  • Powers and Causation
    Printed in Anna Marmodoro (ed.) The Metaphysics of Powers, Routledge 2010: 143-59 A Powerful Theory of Causation Rani Lill Anjum Department of Philosophy, University of Tromsø and Nottingham Stephen Mumford Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham Abstract Hume thought that if you believed in powers, you believed in necessary connections in nature. He was then able to argue that there were none such because anything could follow anything else. But Hume wrong-footed his opponents. A power does not necessitate its manifestations: rather, it disposes towards them in a way that is less than necessary but more than purely contingent. In this paper a dispositional theory of causation is offered. Causes dispose towards their effects and often produce them. But a set of causes, even though they may succeed in producing an effect, cannot necessitate it since the effect could have been counteracted by some additional power. This would require a separation of our concepts of causal production and causal necessitation. The most conspicuous cases of causation are those where powers accumulate and pass a requisite threshold for an effect to occur. We develop a model for representing powers as constituent vectors within an n-dimensional quality space, where composition of causes appears as vector addition. Even our resultant vector, however, has to be understood as having dispositional force only. This model throws new light on causal modality and cases of prevention, causation by absence and probabilistic causation. 1. The dispositionality of causation When it comes to causation, we should think less of necessity and more of dispositionality. Others have already suggested that it should be possible to get a theory of causation from an ontology of real dispositions or powers (Harré and Madden 1975, Bhaskar 1975, Cartwright 1989, Ellis 2001, Molnar 2003: ch.
    [Show full text]