Description This is our last weekly discussion. Our long journey has come to an end, and hope you h ...

---

Description This is our last weekly discussion. Our long journey has come to an end, and hope you have enjoyed most of it.  This week we wrap up the psychological studies of causal reasoning, and hope you now have some good ideas about the ERCs Woodward has emphasized. Please address the following questions:  Cheng's Power PC model gives a very interesting and empirically successful measurement of causal strength p =[Pr(e/c)-Pr(e/~c)]/[(1-Pr(e/~c)]. What is the most persuasive experiment for you to support her theory, from some experiments we have discussed?  Woodward tries to use the notion of invariance to account for psychological discoveries concerning causal strength, preemption, and double prevention. Yet the invariance concept connected to these experiments may not be the same kind of invariance. Do you think Woodward's approach is successful or not? What is your thought on this issue -- can invariance play a fundamental role in explaining psychological discoveries? (Remember in the last chapter invariance explains very well our intuitions about absent causation and double prevention).  (Optional) Now we can look back at the three methodological approaches to the studies of causation: intuition (arm-chair), X-phi, and ERC. What do you think is the best method to study causation, and why?