, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Causation and Counterfactual Dependence

  • Sungho ChoiEmail author


Recently Stephen Barker has raised stimulating objections to the thesis that, roughly speaking, if two events stand in a relation of counterfactual dependence, they stand in a causal relation. As Ned Hall says, however, this thesis constitutes the strongest part of the counterfactual analysis of causation. Therefore, if successful, Barker’s objections will undermine the cornerstone of the counterfactual analysis of causation, and hence give us compelling reasons to reject the counterfactual analysis of causation. I will argue, however, that they do not withstand scrutiny.


Actual World Downward Movement Counterfactual Dependence Downward Force Counterfactual Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



I would like to thank Stephen Barker and two anonymous referees for their very useful suggestions on early drafts of this paper.


  1. Barker S. (2003). Counterfactual Analyses of Causation: The Problem of Effects and Ephiphenomena Revisited. Nous 37: 133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett J. (1984). Counterfactuals and Temporal Direction. Philosophical Review 93: 57–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hall N. (2000). Causation and the Price of Transitivity. Journal of Philosophy 97: 198–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hall N. (2002). Non-locality on the Cheap? A New Problem for Counterfactual Analyses of Causation. Nous 32: 276–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Horwich P. (1987). Asymmetries in Time. Cambridge, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Huemer M. and Kovitz B. (2003). Causation as Simultaneous and Continuous. The Philosophical Quarterly 53: 556–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis, D.: 1979, ‘Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow’, Noûs 13, 455–476. Reprinted in D. Lewis, (1986), Philosophical Papers: Vol. II. Oxford University Press, Oxford (References are to the reprint).Google Scholar
  8. Mellor D. (1995). The Facts of Causation. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Menzies P. (1989).Probabilistic Causation and Causal Processes: A Critique of Lewis. Philosophy of Science 56: 642–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schaffer J. (2000). Overlappings: Probability-Raising without Causation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78: 40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programs in History and Philosophy of Science, College of Natural SciencesSeoul National UniversityKwan-ak-gu, SeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneyMain Quad, A14Australia

Personalised recommendations