Why Your Causal Intuitions are Corrupt: Intermediate and Enabling Variables

Christopher Clarke*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
26 Downloads (Pure)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1065-1093
Number of pages29
JournalErkenntnis
Volume89
Issue number3
Early online date6 Jan 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why Your Causal Intuitions are Corrupt: Intermediate and Enabling Variables'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this