Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T12:09:41.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wesley Salmon's Process Theory of Causality and the Conserved Quantity Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Phil Dowe
Phil Dowe*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, University of New South Wales
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, School of Philosophy, University of N.S.W., Anzac Pde, Kensington 2033, N.S.W. Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines Wesley Salmon's “process” theory of causality, arguing in particular that there are four areas of inadequacy. These are that the theory is circular, that it is too vague at a crucial point, that statistical forks do not serve their intended purpose, and that Salmon has not adequately demonstrated that the theory avoids Hume's strictures about “hidden powers”. A new theory is suggested, based on “conserved quantities”, which fulfills Salmon's broad objectives, and which avoids the problems discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 195 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

A version of this paper was read at the Research School of Social Science, Australian National University. I would like to thank Peter Menzies, Paul Humphreys, Robert McLaughlin and the editor of Philosophy of Science for many helpful suggestions, and also the Philosophy Department, Research School of Social Science, Australian National University for its hospitality while this paper was prepared.

References

Armstrong, D. (1978), Nominalism and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aronson, J. L. (1971), “On the Grammar of ‘Cause‘”, Synthese 22: 414–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1989a), “Discussion: On Tooley On Salmon”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67: 469–471.10.1080/00048408912343981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowe, P. (1989b), “Probabilistic Theories of Causality”, M.A. Thesis, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (forthcoming), “Process Causality and Asymmetry”. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
Ducasse, C. J. (1975), “On the Nature and the Observability of the Causal Relation”, in Sosa, E. (ed.), Causation and Conditionals. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–125.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1976), “Causation: A Matter of Life and Death”, Journal of Philosophy 73: 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehring, D. (1986), “The Transference Theory of Causation”, Synthese 67: 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fair, D. (1979), “Causation and the Flow of Energy”, Erkenntnis 14: 219–250.10.1007/BF00174894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1987), “Critical Notice: Wesley Salmon's Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World”, Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World 54: 597–610.Google Scholar
Fetzer, J. H. (1988), “Probabilistic Metaphysics”, in Fetzer, J. (ed.), Probability and Causality: Essays in Honor of Wesley C. Salmon. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 109–132.10.1007/978-94-009-3997-4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forge, J. C. (1982), “Physical Explanation: With Reference to the Theories of Scientific Explanation of Hempel and Salmon”, in McLaughlin, R. (ed.), What? Where? When? Why?: Essays on Induction, Space and Time, Explanation. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forge, J. C. (1985), Review of Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World by Wesley C. Salmon. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63: 546–549.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988), Review of Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World by Wesley C. Salmon. Philosophical Review 97: 444–446.10.2307/2185459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J. (1986), Review of Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World by W. C. Salmon. Review of Metaphysics 39: 582–585.Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. (1985), “Why Propensities Cannot be Probabilities”, Philosophical Review 94: 557–570.10.2307/2185246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, P. (1986), Review of Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World by Wesley Salmon. Foundations of Physics 16: 1211–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1984), “Epiphenomenal and Supervenient Causation”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 9. Minneapolis: Minneapolis University Press, pp. 257–270.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1985), “Two Approaches to Explanation”, Journal of Philosophy 82: 632–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World”, in Salmon, W. and Kitcher, P. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 13. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 410–505.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (1971), The Matter of Chance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (1988), “On Raising the Chances of Effects”, in Fetzer, J. (ed.), Probability and Causality: Essays in Honor of Wesley C. Salmon. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 229–239.10.1007/978-94-009-3997-4_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzies, P. (1988), “Against Causal Reductionism”, Mind 97: 551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, V. (1973), The Roots of Reference. Lasalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956), The Direction of Time. Edited by Reichenbach, M. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, B. (1981), “Probabilistic Causality, Explanation, and Detection”, Synthese 48: 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1948), Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1978), “Why Ask ‘Why‘?”, Proceeds of the American Philosophical Association 51: 683–705.10.2307/3129654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1979), “Propensities: A Discussion Review”, Erkenntnis 14: 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1980), “Probabilistic Causality”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61: 50–74.10.1111/j.1468-0114.1980.tb00004.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1982a), “Causality: Production and Propagation”, in P. D. Asquith and R. N. Giere (eds.), PSA 1980, vol. 2, pp. 49–69.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1982b), “Further Reflections”, in McLaughlin, R. (ed.), What? Where? When? Why?: Essays on Induction, Space and Time, Explanation. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 231–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1985), “Conflicting Concepts of Scientific Explanation”, Journal of Philosophy 82: 651–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1988a), “Dynamic Rationality: Propensity, Probability, and Credence”, in Fetzer, J. (ed.), Probability and Causality: Essays in Honor of Wesley C. Salmon. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1988b), “Publications: An Annotated Bibliography”, in Fetzer, J. (ed.), Probability and Causality: Essays in Honor of Wesley C. Salmon. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 271–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre, K. M. (1977), “Statistical Models of Causal Relations”, Philosophy of Science 44: 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980), Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necessity of Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1987), “Review Article: Explanation and Causation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38: 243–257.10.1093/bjps/38.2.243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooley, M. (1987), Causation: A Realist Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Torretti, R. (1987), “Do Conjunctive Forks Always Point to a Common Cause?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38: 384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar