Supplement to Probabilistic Causation

Suppes' Motivation for the No-screening-off Condition

Recall the Reichenbach-Suppes theory of causation:

Ct is a cause of Et if and only if:
  1. P(Et | Ct) > P(Et | ~Ct); and
  2. There is no further event Bt, occurring at a time t″ earlier than or simultaneously with t, that screens Et off from Ct.

Reichenbach added condition (ii) to rule out spurious correlations. Suppes motivates condition (ii) in a different way. Suppose that a system has two possible states at time t1, B and ~B; it has three possible states at time t2, C, C′ and C″; and two possible states at t3, E and ~E, with t1 < t2 < t3. Suppose the probabilities are as follows: P(B) = P(~B) = .5. P(C | B) = P(C′ | B) = .5, P(C″ | B) = 0; P(C | ~B) = P(C′ | ~B) = .25, P(C″ | ~B) = .5; P(E |C) = P(E | C′) = .5, P(E | C″) = 0. Suppose moreover that C, C′, and C″ screen B and ~B off from E and ~E. Suppose that B, C, and E occur at times t1, t2, and t3 respectively. Now ~C is logically equivalent to C′ ∨ C″. Then P(E | C) = .5 > P(E | ~C) = P(E | C′ ∨ C″) = .3, in accord with condition (i). However, P(E | C & B) = .5 = P(E | ~C & B), in violation of condition (ii). Intuitively, the idea is this. Overall, C raises the probability of E, because in one of the alternatives to C, namely C″, the probability of E is much lower. However, once B occurs, the only possible alternative to C is C′. Thus, given that B has already occurred, the occurrence of C (as opposed to C′) does not make a difference to the probability of E. Thus, Suppes argues that C is not a cause of E, since the probability of E was already fixed by B. But this example does not have a common cause structure; the structure is like the causal chain depicted in Figure 2 in the main text.

Copyright © 2010 by
Christopher Hitchcock <>

Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free

The SEP would like to congratulate the National Endowment for the Humanities on its 50th anniversary and express our indebtedness for the five generous grants it awarded our project from 1997 to 2007. Readers who have benefited from the SEP are encouraged to examine the NEH’s anniversary page and, if inspired to do so, send a testimonial to