This paper defends absence causation, resolving the problem of profligacy in cases involving holes and surface absences.
In this paper I offer a defence of absence causation in response to a central challenge: the problem of profligacy. Focussing on two related cases of absence causation, holes and surface absences, the account of absence causation offered for these cases has the following attractions: it captures the central features of many of our common-sense judgments about absence causation in these cases; it doesn’t appeal to norms; and is grounded in salient features of the metaphysics of the cases. As such, there’s a metaphysically respectable, principled criterion for absence causation that solves the problem of profligacy for these cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phillip John Meadows (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: