Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDupré, Johnen_GB
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Exeter. At the time of publication, the author was at Stanford University.en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2009-02-04T11:45:51Zen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-25T10:54:27Zen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2013-03-20T15:51:14Z
dc.date.issued1990-12en_GB
dc.description.abstractIn an earlier paper (Dupré 1984), I criticized a thesis sometimes defended by theorists of probabilistic causality, namely, that a probabilistic cause must raise the probability of its effect in every possible set of causally relevant background conditions (the "contextual unanimity thesis"). I also suggested that a more promising analysis of probabilistic causality might be sought in terms of statis- tical relevance in a fair sample. Ellery Eells (1987) has defended the contextual unanimity thesis against my objections, and also raised objections of his own to my positive claims. In this paper I defend and amplify both my objections to the contextual unanimity thesis and my constructive suggestion.en_GB
dc.identifier.citation57(4), pp.690-698en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1086/289588en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10036/48433en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherUniversity of Chicago Pressen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/289588en_GB
dc.subjectprobabilistic causalityen_GB
dc.subjectcontextual unanimity thesisen_GB
dc.subjectprobabilityen_GB
dc.subjectcause and effecten_GB
dc.titleProbabilistic causality: a rejoinder to Ellery Eellsen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2009-02-04T11:45:51Zen_GB
dc.date.available2011-01-25T10:54:27Zen_GB
dc.date.available2013-03-20T15:51:14Z
dc.identifier.issn0031-8248en_GB
dc.description© 1990 The Philosophy of Science Associationen_GB
dc.identifier.journalPhilosophy of Scienceen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record