ABSTRACT
There have been two traditions concerning how the “link” between cause and effect is best understood (Hall 2004; Psillos 2004). According to the first tradition, which goes back to Aristotle, there is a productive relation between cause and effect: the cause produces, generates, or brings about the effect. This productive relation between cause and effect has been typically understood in terms of powers, which in some sense ground the bringing about of the effect by the cause. According to the second tradition, which goes back to Hume, the link is some kind of robust relation of dependence between what are taken to be distinct events. On this account, the chief characteristic of causes is that they are difference-makers: the occurrence of the cause makes a difference to the occurrence of the effect (for Hume’s theory of causation, see Chapter 10). There are various ways to understand the notion of difference-making (e.g. in terms of laws or probabilities); but arguably the core notion of difference-making is counterfactual, i.e. based on contrary-to-fact hypotheticals. That is, a causal claim of the form “A caused B” would be understood as implying: if A hadn’t happened, B wouldn’t have happened either. It is in this sense that A actually makes a difference for B. 2
