This paper offers a critique of the view that causation can be analyzed in terms of explanation. In particular, the following points are argued: (1) a genuine explanatory analysis of causation must make use of a fully epistemological-psychological notion of explanation; (2) it is unlikely that the relatively clear-cut structure of the causal relation can be captured by the relatively unstructured relation of explanation;
(3) the explanatory relation does not always parallel the direction of causation; (4) certain difficulties arise for any attempt to construct a nonrelativistic relation of causation from the essentially relativistic relation of explanation; and ( ) to analyze causation as explanation is to embrace a form of "causal idealism", the view that causal connections are not among the objective features of the world. The paper closes with a brief discussion of the contrast between the two fundamentally opposed viewpoints about causality, namely causal idealism and causal realism.
It is little more than a truism to say that causes explain their effects, or that to ask for the cause of an event is to ask for an explanation of why or how the event occurred. This close association between causation and explanation is amply mirrored in language: we answer 'why'-questions with 'becuase'statements, and surely there is more than an orthographic resemblance between 'cause' and 'because'. The association is also ancient: it goes back to Aristotle, who characterized true, scientific knowledge as knowledge of the 'why' of things, that is, knowledge of the cause that makes a thing what it is and not something else. 2 More recently Hanson wrote: 3
The primary reason for referring to the cause of x is to explain x. There are as many causes of x as there are explanations of x.
Thus the connection between causes and explanations seems more than a