Abstract
When evaluating theories of causation, intuitions should not play a decisive role, not even intuitions in flawlessly-designed thought experiments. Indeed, no coherent theory of causation can respect the typical person’s intuitions in redundancy (pre-emption) thought experiments, without disrespecting their intuitions in threat-and-saviour (switching/short-circuit) thought experiments. I provide a deductively sound argument for these claims. Amazingly, this argument assumes absolutely nothing about the nature of causation. I also provide a second argument, whose conclusion is even stronger: the typical person’s causal intuitions are thoroughly unreliable.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1065-1093 |
Number of pages | 29 |
Journal | Erkenntnis |
Volume | 89 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 6 Jan 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© The Author(s) 2023.