Regularity and Inferential Theories of Causation
Updated 2026-09-10
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
The regularity theory holds that causes are constantly conjoined with their effects. Its most influential version is David Hume's, refined by John Stuart Mill to require that the relevant constant conjunction be a law of nature rather than an accidental generalization. Widely accepted until Lewis's counterfactual analysis displaced it, the approach remains closely tied to inferential accounts of causation and is partly revived within causal modeling.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Test constancy: ask whether the effect always follows the cause, reducing causation to observable repetition. - Separate law from coincidence: distinguish a genuine law of nature from an accidental regularity. - Spot partial conditions: recognize that a common cause is often only part of a sufficient condition.
Anchor fast decisions
The regularity theory has a direct motivation: we observe similar results after similar causes, so causation is identified with that repeated pattern. Its classic difficulties are that constant conjunction is not causation, that accidental generalizations are not laws, and that a real cause is often only an INUS condition. Contemporary versions use ranking functions and related tools to handle these counterexamples.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- plato.stanford.eduhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-regularity/verified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS