反事实与因果机制

Counterfactuals and Causal Mechanisms

当前在因果理论的讨论中,反事实和因果机制两条进路展开了激烈的争论,双方都认为自己的理论优于对方。反事实进路的支持者试图表明机制理论需要反事实作为基础,并且始终无法摆脱"因果相关性"的困境;而机制进路的支持者则认为反事实理论本身面临着许多严峻的问题,根本不能作为因果理论的基础。本文通过对双方争论的剖析,表明这两条进路相比较,反事实比机制进路更为基础,但是,它们之间并不是竞争的关系。若能在反事实进路当中结合机制的考虑,则不但可以克服反事实进路本身的很多困难,并且能更好地理解和建立因果关系。

Among the current discussion about theory of causation, a heated debate has happened between counterfactual approach and causal mechanistic approach. Advocates of each argue that their own approach fairs much better than their opponents＇. Advocates of counterfactual approach attempt to prove theory of mechanisms needs counterfactuals, and cafft get out of the difficulty ＂causal relevance＂, while advocates of mechanistic approach argue that counterfactual itself has severe difficulties, so it can＇t be the basis of theory of causation. This paper shows counterfactuals are more basic than causal mechanisms. However,the two approaches need not be in conflict. If they can complement each other, that is, if the counterfactual theory of causation can be added the mechanistic consideration, than many difficulties can he avoided, and it is helpful to understand and establish causal relations.