Establishing Backward Causation on Empirical Grounds: An Interventionist Approach

IF 0.7 2区哲学 Q1 Arts and Humanities

Thought-A Journal of Philosophy Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI:10.1002/THT3.414

Alexander Gebharter, Dennis Graemer, Frenzis H. Scheffels

引用次数: 0

Abstract

We propose an analysis of backward causation in terms of interventionism that can avoid several problems typically associated with backward causation. Its main advantage over other accounts is that it allows for reducing the problematic task of supporting backward causal claims to the unproblematic task of finding evidence for several ordinary forward directed causal hypotheses.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在经验基础上建立反向因果关系:一种干预主义方法

我们提出了一种从干预主义的角度分析后向因果关系的方法，可以避免几个通常与后向因果有关的问题。与其他解释相比，它的主要优势在于，它可以将支持向后因果主张的有问题的任务减少为为几个普通的正向因果假设寻找证据的无问题任务。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Thought-A Journal of Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Thought: A Journal of Philosophy is dedicated to the publication of short (of less than 4500 words), original, philosophical papers in the following areas: Logic, Philosophy of Maths, Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Metaphysics, and Value Theory. All published papers will be analytic in style. We intend that readers of Thought will be exposed to the most central and significant issues and positions in contemporary philosophy that fall under its remit. We will publish only papers that exemplify the highest standard of clarity. Thought aims to give a response to all authors within eight weeks of submission. Thought employs a triple-blind review system: the author''s identity is not revealed to the editors and referees, and the referee''s identity is not revealed to the author. Every submitted paper is appraised by the Subject Editor of the relevant subject area. Papers that pass to the editors are read by at least two experts in the relevant subject area.