Of strawberries and energy conservation
Marc draws a distinction between causal explanations and non-causal explanations and argues that non-causal explanations exist. Marc has his own way of drawing the distinction; other philosophers draw the distinction differently. How does Marc draw it? He writes: the distinction between “causal” an...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer Netherlands
2018
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/114419 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7892-4540 |
| Summary: | Marc draws a distinction between causal explanations and non-causal explanations and argues that non-causal explanations exist. Marc has his own way of drawing the distinction; other philosophers draw the distinction differently. How does Marc draw it? He writes:
the distinction between “causal” and “non-causal” explanations (as I will use these terms) lies in how they work—that is, in what gives them explanatory power. A “non-causal” explanation may incidentally identify (or, at least, supply information about) causes of what is being explained. But it does not derive its explanatory power by virtue of doing so. (3; my emphasis) |
|---|