Causation According to Mario Bunge and Graham Harman

Mεtascience: Scientific General Discourse 2:66-73 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Imagine a billiard table, with several red billiard balls. Suppose that one of them impacts another. It could be claimed that the first billiard ball, the cause, makes direct contact with the second one, the effect. If we had to generalize this for all things, not just billiard balls, we would say that “thing A causes thing B”. As we shall see, both Bunge and Harman reject the preceding view of causation. They would agree that the statement “thing A causes thing B” is false. This is because things do not make direct causal contact with each other, there has to be a third element that links them. In Bunge’s case, two things are linked by events. In Harman’s case, two real objects are linked by a sensual object.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Bunge and Harman on the General Theory of Objects.Martìn Orensanz - 2022 - Mεtascience: Scientific General Discourse 2:46-64.
La causalité selon Mario Bunge et Graham Harman.Martìn Orensanz - 2022 - Mεtascience: Discours Général Scientifique 2:95-102.
Metascience. For a Scientific General Discourse.François Maurice - 2020 - Mεtascience: Scientific General Discourse 1:31-76.
Bunge’s Metascience and the Naturalization of the General Discourse.François Maurice - 2022 - Mεtascience: Scientific General Discourse 2:74-93.
Presentation: Mεtascience and the Bunge alternative.François Maurice - 2020 - Mεtascience: Scientific General Discourse 1:7-17.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-03-30

Downloads
649 (#38,700)

6 months
202 (#14,173)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations