Glymour, Clark Danks, David Glymour, Bruce Eberhardt, Frederick Ramsey, Joseph Scheines, Richard Spirtes, Peter Teng, Choh Man Zhang, Jiji Actual Causation: a Stone Soup Essay We argue that current discussions of criteria for actual causation are ill-posed in several respects. (1) The methodology of current discussions is by induction from intuitions about an infinitesimal fraction of the possible examples and counterexamples; (2) cases with larger numbers of causes generate novel puzzles; (3) “neuron” and causal Bayes net diagrams are, as deployed in discussions of actual causation, almost always ambiguous; (4) actual causation is (intuitively) relative to an initial system state since state changes are relevant, but most current accounts ignore state changes through time; (5) more generally, there is no reason to think that philosophical judgements about these sorts of cases are normative; but (6) there is a dearth of relevant psychological research that bears on whether various philosophical accounts are descriptive. Our skepticism is not directed towards the possibility of a correct account of actual causation; rather, we argue that standard methods will not lead to such an account. A different approach is required. Actual causation;Bayesian networks;Combinatorics;Intervention;Intuitions 2009-03-20
    https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/journal_contribution/Actual_Causation_a_Stone_Soup_Essay/6490826
10.1184/R1/6490826.v1