Jacob P. Neal (University of Pittsburgh)
Philosophers of biology generally agree that causal specificity tracks biological importance: more specific causes are more important. Largely focused on explanatory contexts, this discussion of causal specificity neglects an important aspect of biological practice, namely, intervention. I argue the importance of causal specificity does not hold in much biological research aimed at intervention. Applying Woodward’s (2010) analysis of causal specificity to the development and design of HIV treatments, I show that drugs that are less causally specific produce better therapeutic outcomes and are more highly valued. Thus, I conclude the importance of causal specificity varies depending upon the biological practices one considers.
