Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:58:12.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discussion: Russell Versus Steiner on Physics and Causality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Alexander Rosenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of California, Riverside

Abstract

In “Events and Causality” Mark Steiner argues that though Bertrand Russell was right to claim that the laws of physics do not express causal relations, nevertheless, Russell was wrong to suppose that therefore causality plays no role in physics. I argue that Steiner misses the point of Russell's argument for the first of these claims, and because of this Steiner's argument against the second fails to controvert it. Steiner fails to see that Russell's argument against causation, is in fact an argument against the existence of causal directionality or asymmetry. Steiner gives no reason to suppose physical theory requires this asymmetry after all.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Davidson, D. (1967), “Causal Relations”, The Journal of Philosophy 64: 691703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. (1965), Lectures in Physics. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Feynman, R. (1985), Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1979), The Structure of Science. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Russell, B. [1917] (1957), Mysticism and Logic. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Steiner, M. (1986), “Events and Causality”, The Journal of Philosophy 65: 249264.10.2307/2026140CrossRefGoogle Scholar