more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 4768

[filed under theme 7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 6. Criterion for Existence ]

Full Idea

The move from what can (or cannot) be known to exist to what does (or does not) exist has been dubbed the 'epistemic fallacy'.

Gist of Idea

The 'epistemic fallacy' is inferring what does exist from what can be known to exist

Source

Stathis Psillos (Causation and Explanation [2002], §1.6)

Book Ref

Psillos,Stathis: 'Causation and Explanation' [Acumen 2002], p.40


A Reaction

This should be a standard concept in all philosophical discussion. It is the commonest, simplest, and most profound blunder made by philosophers, and they do it all the time.


The 32 ideas from 'Causation and Explanation'

Dispositional essentialism can't explain its key distinction between essential and non-essential properties [Psillos]
Empiricists tried to reduce causation to explanation, which they reduced to logic-plus-a-law [Psillos]
Regularity doesn't seem sufficient for causation [Psillos]
It is not a law of nature that all the coins in my pocket are euros, though it is a regularity [Psillos]
There are non-causal explanations, most typically mathematical explanations [Psillos]
Maybe explanation is entirely relative to the interests and presuppositions of the questioner [Psillos]
Causes clearly make a difference, are recipes for events, explain effects, and are evidence [Psillos]
Theories of causation are based either on regularity, or on intrinsic relations of properties [Psillos]
We can't base our account of causation on explanation, because it is the wrong way round [Psillos]
Traditionally, rational beliefs are those which are justified by reasons [Psillos]
The 'epistemic fallacy' is inferring what does exist from what can be known to exist [Psillos]
It is hard to analyse causation, if it is presupposed in our theory of the functioning of the mind [Psillos]
Nothing is more usual than to apply to external bodies every internal sensation which they occasion [Psillos]
Explanation is either showing predictability, or showing necessity, or showing causal relations [Psillos]
Counterfactual claims about causation imply that it is more than just regular succession [Psillos]
In some counterfactuals, the counterfactual event happens later than its consequent [Psillos]
Three divisions of causal theories: generalist/singularist, intrinsic/extrinsic, reductive/non-reductive [Psillos]
If causation is 'intrinsic' it depends entirely on the properties and relations of the cause and effect [Psillos]
Counterfactual theories say causes make a difference - if c hadn't occurred, then e wouldn't occur [Psillos]
A Humean view of causation says it is regularities, and causal facts supervene on non-causal facts [Psillos]
"All gold cubes are smaller than one cubic mile" is a true universal generalisation, but not a law [Psillos]
Laws are sets of regularities within a simple and strong coherent system of wider regularities [Psillos]
The regularity of a cock's crow is used to predict dawn, even though it doesn't cause it [Psillos]
An explanation is the removal of the surprise caused by the event [Psillos]
Just citing a cause does not enable us to understand an event; we also need a relevant law [Psillos]
The 'covering law model' says only laws can explain the occurrence of single events [Psillos]
If laws explain the length of a flagpole's shadow, then the shadow also explains the length of the pole [Psillos]
An explanation can just be a 'causal story', without laws, as when I knock over some ink [Psillos]
A good barometer will predict a storm, but not explain it [Psillos]
If we say where Mars was two months ago, we offer an explanation without a prediction [Psillos]
Valid deduction is monotonic - that is, it remains valid if further premises are added [Psillos]
Induction (unlike deduction) is non-monotonic - it can be invalidated by new premises [Psillos]