Tom is not carrying the bucket because the bucket is carried by Tom. Rather, the bucket is carried by Tom because Tom is carrying the bucket. Fact (1) has explanatory priority over fact (2).
Why do you think this? I do not have this intuition at all. For me, if both (1) and (2) describe exactly the same material state of affairs, no more no less (rather than, e.g. (1) carrying a subtle connotation that the carrying is voluntary) then I would say that the difference between them is only rhetorical, and neither explains the other one more than vice versa.
Thanks for the welcome, and for the reply. My whole argument turns on the premise that the two facts are distinctive because one has explanatory priority over the other, so I’ll try to make this a little clearer.
So, here are three sets of facts. The first set involves no explanatory priority, in the second the active fact is prior, and in the last the passive fact is prior.
A) Tom is taller than Ralph, Ralph is shorter than Tom.
B) Tom praised Steve, Steve was praised by Tom.
C) Tom inadvertently offended Mary, Mary was offended by Tom inadvertently.
In the first case, of course, the facts are perfectly interchangeable. In the second, it seems to me, the active fact explains the passive fact. I mean that it would sound odd to say something like “It is because Steve was praised that Tom praised him” but it seems perfectly natural to say “It is because Tom praised him that Steve was praised.”
And in the last case, I think we are all familiar with the fact that Tom can hardly explain to Mary that he didn’t try to offend her, and so she was not offended. Tom offended Mary because she was offended. Mary’s being offended explains Tom’s inadvertent offending.
Is that convincing at all? I know my examples of explanatory priority are pretty far from billiard ball examples, etc. but maybe the point can be made there as well. Let me know what you think.
Welcome to LW!
The key part of your argument is:
Why do you think this? I do not have this intuition at all. For me, if both (1) and (2) describe exactly the same material state of affairs, no more no less (rather than, e.g. (1) carrying a subtle connotation that the carrying is voluntary) then I would say that the difference between them is only rhetorical, and neither explains the other one more than vice versa.
Thanks for the welcome, and for the reply. My whole argument turns on the premise that the two facts are distinctive because one has explanatory priority over the other, so I’ll try to make this a little clearer.
So, here are three sets of facts. The first set involves no explanatory priority, in the second the active fact is prior, and in the last the passive fact is prior.
A) Tom is taller than Ralph, Ralph is shorter than Tom. B) Tom praised Steve, Steve was praised by Tom. C) Tom inadvertently offended Mary, Mary was offended by Tom inadvertently.
In the first case, of course, the facts are perfectly interchangeable. In the second, it seems to me, the active fact explains the passive fact. I mean that it would sound odd to say something like “It is because Steve was praised that Tom praised him” but it seems perfectly natural to say “It is because Tom praised him that Steve was praised.”
And in the last case, I think we are all familiar with the fact that Tom can hardly explain to Mary that he didn’t try to offend her, and so she was not offended. Tom offended Mary because she was offended. Mary’s being offended explains Tom’s inadvertent offending.
Is that convincing at all? I know my examples of explanatory priority are pretty far from billiard ball examples, etc. but maybe the point can be made there as well. Let me know what you think.