没有因果理论的因果关系

IF 0.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Elena Popa
{"title":"没有因果理论的因果关系","authors":"Elena Popa","doi":"10.1515/humaff-2022-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper takes a critical stance on Tallis’s separation of causation and agency. While his critique of the causal theory of action and the assumptions about causation underlying different versions of determinism, including the one based on neuroscience is right, his rejection of causation (of all sorts) has implausible consequences. Denying the link between action and causation amounts to overlooking the role action plays in causal inference and in the origin of causal concepts. I suggest that a weaker version of Tallis’ claim, compatible with causation understood as agency, would work better.","PeriodicalId":44829,"journal":{"name":"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly","volume":"110 ","pages":"389 - 393"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causation without the causal theory of action\",\"authors\":\"Elena Popa\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/humaff-2022-0032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper takes a critical stance on Tallis’s separation of causation and agency. While his critique of the causal theory of action and the assumptions about causation underlying different versions of determinism, including the one based on neuroscience is right, his rejection of causation (of all sorts) has implausible consequences. Denying the link between action and causation amounts to overlooking the role action plays in causal inference and in the origin of causal concepts. I suggest that a weaker version of Tallis’ claim, compatible with causation understood as agency, would work better.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"110 \",\"pages\":\"389 - 393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2022-0032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2022-0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文对塔利斯的因果与代理分离论持批判态度。虽然他对行为因果理论的批判和对不同版本的决定论(包括基于神经科学的决定论)背后的因果关系的假设是正确的,但他对因果关系(各种因果关系)的拒绝却产生了令人难以置信的后果。否认行为和因果关系之间的联系等于忽视了行为在因果推理和因果概念起源中的作用。我认为,塔利斯主张的一个较弱版本,与被理解为能动性的因果关系相一致,会更好地发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Causation without the causal theory of action
Abstract This paper takes a critical stance on Tallis’s separation of causation and agency. While his critique of the causal theory of action and the assumptions about causation underlying different versions of determinism, including the one based on neuroscience is right, his rejection of causation (of all sorts) has implausible consequences. Denying the link between action and causation amounts to overlooking the role action plays in causal inference and in the origin of causal concepts. I suggest that a weaker version of Tallis’ claim, compatible with causation understood as agency, would work better.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
41
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信