Recent literature on causation invokes a distinction between deviant and default behavior to account for token causation. Critical examination of two prominent attempts to employ a distinction between deviants and defaults reveals that the distinction is far from clear. I clarify and develop the distinction by appeal to the notion of a modally robust process, and show how the distinction can be employed by causal process theorists to respond to cases of causation by omission. This shows that the default/deviant distinction is not so much a tool for counterfactual accounts of causation, but rather for causal process theory.
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'Using defaults to understand token causation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
- School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences - Senior Lecturer in Metaphysics and Philosophy of Sci
Person: Academic: Research Active