scholarly journals Experimental Philosophy and Causal Attribution

2016 ◽  
pp. 434-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Livengood ◽  
David Rose
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Causal Attribution

Causal attribution and counterfactual thinking - when does performing one facilitate performance of the other

2003 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-218
Author(s):  
A. N’gbala ◽  
N. R. Branscombe
Keyword(s):  
Response Times ◽  
Causal Attribution ◽  
Counterfactual Thinking ◽  
The Other

When do causal attribution and counterfactual thinking facilitate one another, and when do the two responses overlap? Undergraduates (N = 78) both explained and undid, in each of two orders, events that were described either with their potential causes or not. The time to perform either response was recorded. Overall, mutation response times were shorter when performed after an attribution was made than before, while attribution response times did not vary as a consequence of sequence. Depending on whether the causes of the target events were described in the scenario or not, respondents undid the actor and assigned causality to another antecedent, or pointed to the actor for both responses. These findings suggest that counterfactual mutation is most likely to be facilitated by attribution, and that mutation and attribution responses are most likely to overlap when no information about potential causes of the event is provided.

Shifting Concepts

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Central Area ◽  
Linguistic Meaning ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Important Work ◽  
Linguistic Communication ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Semantic Properties ◽  
Conceptual Variation

Concepts stand at the centre of human cognition. We use concepts in categorizing objects and events in the world, in reasoning and action, and in social interaction. It is therefore not surprising that the study of concepts constitutes a central area of research in philosophy and psychology. Since the 1970s, psychologists have carried out intriguing experiments testing the role of concepts in categorizing and reasoning, and have found a great deal of variation in categorization behaviour across individuals and cultures. During the same period, philosophers of language and mind did important work on the semantic properties of concepts, and on how concepts are related to linguistic meaning and linguistic communication. An important motivation behind this was the idea that concepts must be shared, across individuals and cultures. However, there was little interaction between these two research programs until recently. With the dawn of experimental philosophy, the proposal that the experimental data from psychology lacks relevance to semantics is increasingly difficult to defend. Moreover, in the last decade, philosophers have approached questions about the tension between conceptual variation and shared concepts in communication from a new perspective: that of ameliorating concepts for theoretical or for social and political purposes. The volume brings together leading psychologists and philosophers working on concepts who come from these different research traditions.

Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Volume 2

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Cognitive Sciences ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
New Research ◽  
Philosophical Questions

This is the second volume in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, a series with the aim of providing a venue for publishing work in this emerging field. Experimental philosophy is a new movement that seeks to use empirical techniques to illuminate some of the oldest issues in philosophy. It is an interdisciplinary field at the intersection of philosophy, psychology, and related disciplines, such as linguistics and sociology. Although the movement is only a few years old, it has already sparked an explosion of new research, challenging a number of cherished assumptions in both philosophy and the cognitive sciences. This volume includes both theoretical and experimental chapters as well as chapters that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries. It is divided into three parts that explore epistemology, moral and political philosophy, and metaphysics and mind, showcasing the diversity of work that has arisen as traditionally philosophical questions have met the tools of social science.

Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy Volume 3

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Network Analysis ◽  
Statistical Methods ◽  
Experimental Philosophy ◽  
Formal Semantics ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Methodological Approaches

The papers collected in this third volume of Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy illustrate the ways in which the field continues to broaden, taking on new methodological approaches and interacting with substantive theories from an ever wider array of disciplines. As the papers themselves clearly show, some recent research in experimental philosophy is going more deeply into well-established questions in the field, but at the same time, other strands of research are exploring issues that hardly appeared at all in the field even a few years ago. Thus, we see the introduction of new empirical and statistical methods (network analysis), new theoretical approaches (formal semantics), and the development of entirely new interdisciplinary connections (in the emerging field of “experimental jurisprudence”)

Evaluation of the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Assessing Causal Attribution of Clinical Outcome to Homeopathic Intervention as Presented in Case Reports

Homeopathy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 109 (04) ◽  
pp. 191-197
Author(s):  
Chetna Deep Lamba ◽  
Vishwa Kumar Gupta ◽  
Robbert van Haselen ◽  
Lex Rutten ◽  
Nidhi Mahajan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Causal Relationship ◽  
Clinical Case ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Causal Attribution ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
The Face ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to establish the reliability and content validity of the “Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy—Causal Attribution Inventory” as a tool for attributing a causal relationship between the homeopathic intervention and outcome in clinical case reports. Methods Purposive sampling was adopted for the selection of information-rich case reports using pre-defined criteria. Eligible case reports had to fulfil a minimum of nine items of the CARE Clinical Case Reporting Guideline checklist and a minimum of three of the homeopathic HOM-CASE CARE extension items. The Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy Inventory consists of 10 domains. Inter-rater agreement in the scoring of these domains was determined by calculating the percentage agreement and kappa (κ) values. A κ greater than 0.4, indicating fair agreement between raters, in conjunction with the absence of concerns regarding the face validity, was taken to indicate the validity of a given domain. Each domain was assessed by four raters for the selected case reports. Results Sixty case reports met the inclusion criteria. Inter-rater agreement/concordance per domain was “perfect” for domains 1 (100%, κ = 1.00) and 2 (100%, κ = 1.00); “almost perfect” for domain 8 (97.5%, κ = 0.86); “substantial” for domains 3 (96.7%, κ = 0.80) and 5 (91.1%, κ = 0.70); “moderate” for domains 4 (83.3%, κ = 0.60), 7 (67.8%, κ = 0.46) and 9 (99.2%, κ = 0.50); and “fair” for domain 10 (56.1%, κ = 0.38). For domains 6A (46.7%, κ = 0.03) and 6B (50.3%, κ = 0.18), there was “slight agreement” only. Thus, the validity of the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy tool was established for each of its domains, except for the two that pertain to direction of cure (domains 6A and 6B). Conclusion The Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy—Causal Attribution Inventory was identified as a valid tool for assessing the likelihood of a causal relationship between a homeopathic intervention and clinical outcome. Improved wordings for several criteria have been proposed for the assessment tool, under the new acronym “MONARCH”. Further assessment of two MONARCH domains is required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document