The Cement Of The Universe

By John Earman, J. Mackie. 1974

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences (2017, background): “ontrasts are the primary way that people select explanations. In particular, to select an explanation from a set of causes, people look at the dierence between the cases of the fact and foil. Mackie [110] is one of the earliest to argue for explanation selection based on contrastive criteria, howeve”
A Theory of Causation: Causae Causantes (Originating Causes) as Inus Conditions in Branching Space-Times (2005, background): “(Mackie [1974], p.”
Knowledge-Based Causal Attribution: The Abnormal Conditions Focus Model (1986, methodology): “given in Mackie (1974), the natural logic model described by”
Degrees of Causation (2009, methodology): “Note that Mackie’s (1965) original formulation was more restrictive than the NESS test as discussed in Wright (1988) because it contained a condition that ruled out causal overdetermination (condition 4), which he later dropped (Mackie 1974).”
Story understanding and counterfactual reasoning. (2003, background): “The necessity in the circumstances of the story for each causal relationship was tested in the form of a counterfactual: If not A, then not B (Mackie, 1980).”
Is Understanding A Species Of Knowledge? (2006, unknown): “Mackie’s well-known examples (Mackie [1980], pp.”
Causal Responsibility and Counterfactuals (2013, background): “There have been many attempts to define causation in terms of non-causal concepts such as regularities (Mackie, 1974), probabilities (Suppes, 1970), counterfactuals (Lewis, 1986), or physical processes (Dowe, 2000).”
Impact of a Confounding Variable on a Regression Coefficient (2000, methodology): “In the language of the counterfactual argument (Giere 1981; Lewis 1973; Mackie 1974; Rubin 1974), the difference in means between treatment and control groups then represents the effect a given subject would have experienced had he or she been exposed to one type of treatment instead of the other (s”