The Process Theory of Causality

I encountered recently the phrase "the process theory of causality." I asked myself, in accord with the lingo of our time, "is that a thing?" So of course I did some googling.

The answer is: Yes. It's a thing Here is a pertinent link I discovered via such googling. : https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279739.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199279739-e-0011

The process theory of causality (PTC) holds that causal processes are more fundamental than the events they are often said to link. We say "A caused B." The act of striking the match against a hard surface caused it to light on fire. But what really exists is a single underlying process over time, where both A and B are abstracted parts of that whole.

John Venn is said to have gotten the PTC underway, saying: "Substitute for the time honored 'chain of causation' so often introduced into discussions on this subject the phrase 'a rope of causation' and see what a very different aspect the question will wear." Venn, portrayed above, is better known for displaying logic as a matter of circles that either do or do not overlap, that either are or are not nested in one another, etc.

At any rate, Venn died in 1923. His comment on the rope of causation was picked up on and elaborated on as a philosophical approach to the question of causation only much more recently, by Wesley Salmon, the author of SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION AND THE CAUSAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD (1988).

I really ought to study up on this stuff, by way of renewing my Mr Know-it-all blowhard license.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog