An Evaluation of Woodward’s Theory of Causal Explanation

I argue that Woodward’s claims that causal explanation is a “matter of exhibiting systematic patterns of counterfactual dependence, ” and that causal explanation is a matter of answering “what-if-things-had-been-different ” questions, are false. I also examine Woodward’s claim that his theory can account for the apparent interest-relativity of explanation in a way that avoids commitment to the idea that our interests “enter into the explanatory relation itself.” Woodward’s discussion provides an argument for the very thesis he wants to reject.