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.
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
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver