Bilking the Bilking Argument more

causation' y 'backwards ince so many writers use the term 'backwards causation' 'intelligent trees', able to observe but unable to intervene in what we see. world, Dummett notes that 'we should have great difficulty in arriving at causal them' (1964: 339 In order to explain such things, 'we should have to substitute a some subsequent moment' ( observers' - the wall' observe as Dummett's intelligent trees: golf ball , whilst Tooley's wall is intended to constraint on their interference is 'contingent relative to the nature of the causal processes involved' (Ben wall's observed side is the same, whether or not we there ... So it follows that there is no backwards causation ... in the processes on the observed side of the wall, whether sses by agents from the wall's the Achilles' heel of the bilking argument is the of Tooley's Suppose that, as in Tooley's scenar Tooley's does not change the direction of one's bodily 'home' side to the 'away' side, causation on the ' bilking attempts 'backwards causation' we do not mean side's causation is sceptic's proving that the other's proving this. , the sceptics' main reason to resist conceding that causation occurs 17 St Ebbe's Street, Oxford 0X11PT, UK