Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 287–318 | Cite as

Causation in biology: stability, specificity, and the choice of levels of explanation

  • James Woodward
Article

Abstract

This paper attempts to elucidate three characteristics of causal relationships that are important in biological contexts. Stability has to do with whether a causal relationship continues to hold under changes in background conditions. Proportionality has to do with whether changes in the state of the cause “line up” in the right way with changes in the state of the effect and with whether the cause and effect are characterized in a way that contains irrelevant detail. Specificity is connected both to David Lewis’ notion of “influence” and also with the extent to which a causal relation approximates to the ideal of one cause–one effect. Interrelations among these notions and their possible biological significance are also discussed.

Keywords

Cause Stability Levels of explanation Specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Versions of this paper were given as talks at a Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science Colloquium on causation in biology and physics, October, 2006, a University of Maryland conference on causation and mechanisms in April, 2007, at the University of Pittsburgh, October, 2007 and at meetings of the SPSP and the Behavioral Genetics Association in June, 2009. Particular thanks to James Bogen, Lindley Darden, Peter Machamer, Sandra Mitchell, Ken Schaffner, Ken Waters, Marcel Weber, and especially Ken Kendler for helpful discussion.

References

  1. Campbell J (2006) Manipulating color: pounding an almond. In: Gendler T, Hawthorne J (eds) Perceptual experience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crick F (1958) On protein synthesis. Symp Soc Exp Biol 12:138–163Google Scholar
  3. Davidson E (2001) Genomic regulatory systems: development and evolution. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype: the long reach of the gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Gottesman I, Gould T (2003) The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry 160:636–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenspan R (2001) The flexible genome. Nat Rev Genet 2:383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths P, Gray R (1994) Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. J Phil 91:277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hausman D, Woodward J (1999) Independence, invariance and the causal Markov condition. The Br J Philos Sci 50:521–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hill A (1965) The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58:295–300Google Scholar
  10. Kendler K (2005) A gene for…: the nature of gene action in psychiatric disorders. Am J Psychiatry 162:1243–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kvart I (2001) Lewis’ ‘causation as influence’. Australas J Philos 79:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis D (1986) Postscript c to ‘causation’: (insensitive causation). In: Philosophical papers, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 184–188Google Scholar
  13. Lewis D (2000) Causation as influence. J Phil 97:182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mitchell S (2000) Dimensions of scientific law. Phil Sci 67:242–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mitchell S (2009) Unsimple truths: science, complexity, and policy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Oyama S (2000) Causal contributions and causal democracy in developmental systems theory. Phil Sci 67:S332–S347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rieke F, Warland D, van Steveninck R, Bialek W (1997) Spikes: exploring the nature of the neural code. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Sarkar S (2005) How genes encode information for phenotypic traits. In: Sarkar S (ed) Molecular models of life. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Susser M (1977) Judgment and causal inference: criteria in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 105:1–15Google Scholar
  20. Thompson J (2003) Causation: omissions. Phil Phenomenol Res 66:81–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Waters K (2007) Causes that make a difference. J Phil CIV:551–579Google Scholar
  22. Weber M (2006) The central dogma as a thesis of causal specificity. Hist Philos Life Sci 28:595–609Google Scholar
  23. Woodward J (1999) Causal interpretation in systems of equations. Synthese 121:199–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Woodward J (2003) Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Woodward J (2006) Sensitive and insensitive causation. Phil Rev 115:1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yablo S (1992) Mental causation. Phil Rev 101:245–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Institute of Technology (Caltech)PasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations