Publicação
Manipulando sombras: Hacia una (di)solución evidencialista del problema de la exclusión causal
| Resumo: | A classic problem in philosophy of mind is the possible exclusion of mental causes with respect to the physical ones. This problem, popularised by Jaegwon Kim, has undesirable consequences for any scientific discipline committed with causal claims related to supervenient properties. Focusing on issues concerning causal claims in the special sciences, I discuss in this paper the solution to the causal exclusion problem put forward by a group of authors occasionally called «evidentialists». Evidentialists consider that causal exclusion problem can be solved by appealing to the manipulationist notion of cause, originally formulated by James Woodward. Throughout the last 10 year, the evidentialist view has received some criticisms by Michael Baumgartner. My goal is to show in which respects these criticisms are correct, but do not compromise the overall validity of the evidentialist view. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Lorenzo, Baravalle |
| Assunto: | Supervenience Causal Models Manipulationism Evidentialism |
| Ano: | 2019 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | espanhol |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| Resumo: | A classic problem in philosophy of mind is the possible exclusion of mental causes with respect to the physical ones. This problem, popularised by Jaegwon Kim, has undesirable consequences for any scientific discipline committed with causal claims related to supervenient properties. Focusing on issues concerning causal claims in the special sciences, I discuss in this paper the solution to the causal exclusion problem put forward by a group of authors occasionally called «evidentialists». Evidentialists consider that causal exclusion problem can be solved by appealing to the manipulationist notion of cause, originally formulated by James Woodward. Throughout the last 10 year, the evidentialist view has received some criticisms by Michael Baumgartner. My goal is to show in which respects these criticisms are correct, but do not compromise the overall validity of the evidentialist view. |
|---|