Citation Style

The following sample text illustrates the main conventions adopted by the Gavin David Young Lectures in Philosophy governing inline citations:

Ever since Hume attempted it (1777: §7), many philosophers have tried to understand actual causation (Armstrong 1999; Collins, Hall, and Paul 2004; Hitchcock 2007; Glynn 2009; Paul and Hall 2013). Some have tried multiple times (Lewis 1973a; 2000). Some have decided it is no more than an outmoded ‘relic’ (Russell 1913: 1); but Cartwright argues that it ‘cannot be done away with’ (1979: 419–20). Some say causation is needed for causal explanation (van Fraassen 1980: ch. 5). And some conceptions of causation have been long-neglected (Descartes 1641: 45; Aristotle 1984: 198^a22–5). Weirdly, some philosophical works don’t really have causation as their main focus (Kant 1787; Belnap 1962; Langton and Lewis 1998; Le Poidevin, Simons, et al. 2009; Avigad and Zach 2020). Sometimes we really need to look in lots of different places in a text to see where they say things about causation (Lewis 1973b: 1–8, 101–7, 150–63, 199–218, 994–1234; 1986). Sometimes different authors with the same name have engaged with these sorts of questions (Lewis 1973b; 1986; 2007; Lewis, PJ 2007). Sometimes things aren’t published, or are forthcoming (Hall 2009; Robertson forthcoming).

In an inline citation like ‘(Lewis 1986: 5)’, the locator following the colon after the publication year is understood by default to refer to a page or page range; no indication like ‘p.’ or ‘pp.’ is needed. If you need to refer to something using a different locator, please use these standard abbreviations: §, ¶, fig., tbl., vol., pt.

The bibliography is styled as follows; most cases you may encounter (articles, books, chapters, unpublished works,  are illustrated below.

References