The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Causation: One Word, Many Things
Open accessAbstract
We currently have on offer a variety of different theories of causation. Many are strikingly good, providing detailed and plausible treatments of exemplary cases; and all suffer from clear counterexamples. I argue that, contra Hume and Kant, this is because causation is not a single, monolithic concept. There are different kinds of causal relations imbedded in different kinds of systems, readily described using thick causal concepts. Our causal theories pick out important and useful structures that fit some familiar cases—cases we discover and ones we devise to fit.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy
Williams, B. (2006) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203969847 · Cited by 2,714
The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science
Cartwright, N. (1999) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139167093 · Cited by 2,433
Self-citationCausal diagrams for empirical research
PEARL, J. (1995) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/82.4.669 · Cited by 2,355 · cited 1×
“(Pearl 1995, 669–670) Figure 3 shows the Bayes-net diagram that Pearl offers to represent the situation he describes.”
BackgroundEthics and the Limits of Philosophy.
Nagel, T., & Williams, B. (1986) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2026097 · Cited by 990
Atheoretical macroeconometrics: A critique
Cooley, T. F., & Leroy, S. F. (1985) · Journal of Monetary Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-3932(85)90038-8 · Cited by 711
(2001) · The Methodology of Empirical Macroeconomics · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613050.005 · Cited by 493
Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences
Woodward, J. (2000) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/51.2.197 · Cited by 380
Anscombe, E. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429502439-5 · Cited by 345
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Zelterman, D. (2001) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2001.s594 · Cited by 308
Hausman, D. M. (1998) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511663710 · Cited by 306
Cited by
Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology
CHINN, C. A., BUCKLAND, L. A., & SAMARAPUNGAVAN, A. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722 · Cited by 524
Wilson, A. (2018) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12190 · Cited by 267
Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015135 · Cited by 210
Metadata
- Authors
- Cartwright, N.
- Venue
- Philosophy of Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 805-819
- ISSN
- 0031-8248 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-767X
- OpenAlex
- W2060025708
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 33.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Causation: One Word, Many Things. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/426771
- The paper
- Cartwright, N. (2004). Causation: One Word, Many Things. Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1086/426771
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
