@incollection {939584,
	title = {Disentangling Causal Pluralism},
	booktitle = {Worldviews, Science and Us. Studies of Analytical Metaphysics.},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {207{\textendash}223},
	publisher = {World Scientific Publishing Company},
	abstract = {<p>Causal pluralism is increasingly gaining interest as a promising alternative for monistic approaches toward causation. However, although the debate is scarcely out of the egg, the term {\textquoteleft}causal pluralism{\textquoteright} already covers diverse meanings. This creates confusion, and to remedy that confusion, it is necessary to discern different kinds of pluralistic approaches to causation and different possible positions within them. In this paper, I argue for a general distinction between conceptual causal pluralism, metaphysical causal pluralism and epistemological-methodological causal pluralism. I mainly focus on metaphysical approaches to causation and discern herein four possible positions: metaphysical causal constructivism, metaphysical causal monism, weak metaphysical causal pluralism, and strong metaphysical causal pluralism. Each of these positions are further related to their most obvious conceptual counterpart, specifically conceptual causal monism or conceptual causal pluralism.</p>},
	isbn = {981-4295-81-7},
	author = {De Vreese, Leen},
	editor = {Vanderbeeken, Robrecht and D{\textquoteright}Hooghe, Bart}
}
