European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 47–69 | Cite as

Generic versus single-case causality: the case of autopsy

Original Paper in Philosophy of Science

Abstract

This paper addresses questions about how the levels of causality (generic and single-case causality) are related. One question is epistemological: can relationships at one level be evidence for relationships at the other level? We present three kinds of answer to this question, categorised according to whether inference is top-down, bottom-up, or the levels are independent. A second question is metaphysical: can relationships at one level be reduced to relationships at the other level? We present three kinds of answer to this second question, categorised according to whether single-case relations are reduced to generic, generic relations are reduced to single-case, or the levels are independent. We then explore causal inference in autopsy. This is an interesting case study, we argue, because it refutes all three epistemologies and all three metaphysics. We close by sketching an account of causality that survives autopsy—the epistemic theory.

Keywords

Causality Causal inference Autopsy Epistemic theory 

References

  1. Abdel-Karim, I. A., Sammel, R. B., & Prange, M. A. (2007). Causes of death at autopsy in an inpatient hospice program. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 10(4), 894–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, V. I. (2008). Guidelines for reports by autopsy pathologists. Humana Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aho, H. (2003). The roles of autopsies in the development of medicine. Duodecim, 119(13), 1255–1264 (article in Finnish).Google Scholar
  4. Ayoub, T., & Chow, J. (2008). The conventional autopsy in modern medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 177–181.Google Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, L. B., Amsel, G., Redford, M. A., & Casasola, M. (1998). The development of infant causal perception. In A. Slater (Ed.), Perceptual development: Visual, auditory, and speech perception in infancy (pp. 167–209). East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, H., Leigh, M. A., Lucas, S., & Martin, I. (2007). The coroner’s autopsy. The final say in establishing cause of death? The Medico Legal Journal, 75, 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummings, P. M., Le, B. H., & Lopes, M. B. S. (2007). Postmortem findings in morbidly obese individuals dying after gastric bypass procedures. Human Pathology, 38(4), 593–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dieboled, J. (2007). Clinical autopsy—its role in modern medicine. Praxis (Bern 1994), 96(43), 1667–1671 (article in German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ducasse, C. J. (1926). On the nature and the observability of the causal relation. The Journal of Philosophy, 23(3), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ducasse, C. J. (1968). Truth, knowledge and causation. New York: Humanities.Google Scholar
  16. Eells, E. (1991). Probabilistic causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fornaro, G., Lazzero, M., Giacalone, A., Aralda, D., Prando, M. D., Rossi, L., et al. (2008). Death after ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy, angioplasty, or conventional therapy. A post-mortem study to verify cardiac rupture as a cause of death. Giornale italiano di cardiologia, 9(6), 408–420 (article in Italian).Google Scholar
  18. Gerring, J. (2005). Causation: A unified framework for the social sciences. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17, 163–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillies, D. A. (2011). The Russo–Williamson thesis and the question of whether smoking causes heart disease. In P. McKay Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Glennan, S. (1996). Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis, 44, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. In Philosophy of science. Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association. Part II: Symposia papers (Sep. 2002) (Vol. 69(3), pp. S342–S353).Google Scholar
  22. Glennan, S. (2010). Mechanisms, causes and the layered model of the world. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, 81(2), 362–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, N. (2004). Two concepts of causation. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 225–276). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295–300.Google Scholar
  25. Hume, D. (1748). Enquiry into the human understanding. In Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (1777 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Izegbu, M. C., Agboola, A. O. J., Shittu, L. A. J., & Akiode, O. (2006). Medical certification of death and indications for medico-legal autopsies: The need for inclusion in continue medical education in Nigeria. Scientific Research and Essay, 1(3), 61–64.Google Scholar
  27. Jönssona, A. K., Holmgrenb, P., Druid, H., & Ahlner, J. (2007). Cause of death and drug use pattern in deceased drug addicts in Sweden, 2002–2003. Forensic Science International, 169(2–3), 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month-old infants perceive causality? Cognition, 25, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, D. K. (1973). Causation. In Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 159–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press (1986).Google Scholar
  30. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthews, P. (2008). Coroners’ law resource. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/coroners/.
  32. Michotte, A. (1962). The perception of causality. Andover, MA: Methuen.Google Scholar
  33. Muentener, P., & Carey, S. (2006). What is the domain of causal perception? Investigating causal perception of motion and non-motion state change events in infancy. Journal of Vision, 6, 965a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. NCEPOD (2006). The coroner’s autopsy: Do we deserve better? http://www.ncepod.org.uk/2006.htm. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death.
  35. NCHS (2003). Physicians’ handbook on medical certification of death. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  36. Ní Bhrolcháin, M., & Dyson, T. (2007). On causation in demography: Issues and illustrations. Population and Development Review, 33(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Psillos, S. (2004). A glimpse of the secret connexion: Harmonising mechanisms with counterfactuals. Perspectives on Science, 12(3), 288–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roulson, J., Benbow, E. W., & Hasleton, P. S. (2005). Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis and the value of post mortem histology; a meta-analysis and review. Histopathology, 47, 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Russo, F. (2009). Causality and causal modelling in the social sciences. Measuring variations. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2007). Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in Philosophy of Science, 21(2), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salmon, W. C. (1980). Probabilistic causality. In Causality and explanation (pp. 208–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press (1988).Google Scholar
  43. Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sando, Z., Borisch, B., & Bosman, F. (1999). Autopsies: From the past to the future. Revue Médicale de la Suisse Romande, 119(10), 763–767 (article in French).Google Scholar
  46. Schlottmann, A., & Surian, L. (1999). Do 9-month-olds perceive causation-at-a-distance? Perception, 28, 1105–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shojania, K. G., Burton, E. C., McDonald, K. M., & Goldman, L. (2003). Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(21), 2849–2856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sober, E. (1984). Two concepts of cause. In PSA: Proceedings of the biannual meeting of the philosophy of science association (1982) (Vol. 2, pp. 405–424).Google Scholar
  49. Sober, E. (1986). Causal factors, causal inference, causal explanation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 60, 97–113.Google Scholar
  50. Swaen, G., & van Amelsvoo, L. (2009). A weight of evidence approach to causal inference. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(3), 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taggart, M. W., & Craver, R. (2006). Causes of death, determined by autopsy, in previously healthy (or near-healthy) children presenting to a children’s hospital. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 130(12), 1780–1785.Google Scholar
  52. Terrabuio, Jr., A. A., Parra, E. R., Farhat, C., & Capelozzi, V. L. (2007). Autopsy-proven causes of death in lungs of patients immunocompromised by secondary interstitial pneumonia. Clinical Sciences, 62(1), 69–76.Google Scholar
  53. Tsokos, M., Heinemann, A., & Püschel, K. (2000). Pressure sores: Epidemiology, medico-legal implications and forensic argumentation concerning causality. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 113(5), 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Twardy, C. R., & Bingham, G. P. (2002). Causation, causal perception, and conservation laws. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 956–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ullah, K., & Alamgir, W. (2006). Comparison of clinical causes of death with autopsy diagnosis using discrepency classification. Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 16(12), 768–772.Google Scholar
  56. Weber, E. (2007). Conceptual tools for causal analysis in the social sciences. In F. Russo & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality and probability in the sciences (pp. 197–213). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Williamson, J. (2005). Bayesian nets and causality: Philosophical and computational foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Williamson, J. (2006a). Causal pluralism versus epistemic causality. Philosophica, 77, 69–96.Google Scholar
  59. Williamson, J. (2006b). Dispositional versus epistemic causality. Minds and Machines, 16, 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williamson, J. (2007). Causality. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 14, pp. 95–126). Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Williamson, J. (2009). Probabilistic theories of causality. In H. Beebee, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 185–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williamson, J., & Gabbay, D. (2005). Recursive causality in Bayesian networks and self-fibring networks. In D. Gillies (Ed.), Laws and models in the sciences (pp. 173–221). London: King’s College Publications (with comments pp. 223–245).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy–SECLUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations