What is the relationship between causes and counterfactuals?

Answer 1

Counterfactuals crop up in two main academic fields: history and logic/philosophy.

A usual factual chain of events is A,B and C causes E, F, and G (not respectively, but in cluster). In simple terms: [A,B,C] --> [E,F,G].

A counterfactual claim is that if one of A, B or C were changed in any way, then the results [E, F, and G] would be different in some important respect.

A historical counterfactual claim could be: "If Hitler weren't born, there would be no WWII." A person who makes such a claim is essentially arguing for the importance and indispensability of Hitler as a historical agent leading to WWII. Someone who refutes this counterfactual is someone who believes that even without Hitler, another person in that mold could easily rise, given the character of the Nazi regime.

Counterfactuals in history, and more broadly in logic, are useful ways of thinking about causality. It forces thinkers to take a position on whether a particular element in the chain of earlier events were important causes leading to subsequent events, or just incidental.

E.H. Carr, a noted historian, has dismissed counterfactual history as a mere parlor game. Contemporary historians dabble in it still, because it is fun and makes for great reading and intellectual stimulation. The works of Niall Ferguson, Philip Tetlock etc are good places to start.