Abstract

This paper introduces a novel framework for causal selection based on an analysis of different ways in which causes interact. Some causal interactions function to enable the operation of a mechanism, while others modify the behavior or outcome of that mechanism, allowing fine-grained descriptions of causal relationships. Distinguishing between enabling and modifying makes it possible to separate distinct causal functions that are wrongly grouped into an undifferentiated category of background conditions. Drawing on case studies from ecology, the framework offers new insights into why some factors should be cited in explanations while others remain implicit, despite being causally indispensable.

Characters—parts, properties, or activities of organisms—can be individuated in multiple, non-equivalent ways. This paper aims to show how these differences matter, to frame the problem of character individuation methodologically, and to outline a path to resolving it. I describe the main scientific roles for the character concept, and analyze three broad approaches to character individuation: functional, descriptive, and developmental. I explore which approaches are appropriate for which roles, and propose two evolutionary hypotheses to explain why functionally and developmentally individuated characters diverge.

In this paper, I argue that the fact that a discipline is rarely able to secure knowledge is entirely compatible with the idea that acquiring knowledge is aim of that discipline. What’s more, I maintain that progress towards this aim can be made, and measured, even if a discipline has failed to produce any such knowledge. In motivating this controversial view, I appeal to a field which has been almost entirely ignored by the scientific progress literature: astrobiology.