It seems most people who write about causation take causation to be ‘in the world’ in some way, as some sort of force or a relationship (e.g. perhaps regularity as per Hume) between things in the world or something like that. I think probability raising would be covered by this seeing as we’re talking about probabilities of things in the world.
What are the alternatives?
Perhaps causation is a relationship between a WORD for a thing in the world and the FACT of another thing in the world. — invizzy
What do you think? Could causation be a relationship between words and things rather than things and things? — invizzy
So Aristotle would say the bronze causes the statue and one explanation = the words ‘the bronze’ ARE sufficient to give information about the statue (e.g. information about what the statue is made of) however the mere fact there is the statue is NOT sufficient to tell you that there is bronze, only that there might be bronze (i.e. statues can also be marble). — invizzy
with no further justification than its usefulness — Banno
Perhaps the linguistic confusion you are referring to is due in part to the use of a single English word, "cause", to translate Aristotle's four causal relationships. Today, we usually think of "Causation" in terms of Energy. But for Ari, the word "energeia" simply meant objective (productive) physical "work", and "ation" meant a subjective rational explanation, a reason, a why. We observe the Fact of change, and then explain it in Words.It seems most people who write about causation take causation to be ‘in the world’ in some way, as some sort of force or a relationship (e.g. perhaps regularity as per Hume) between things in the world or something like that. I think probability raising would be covered by this seeing as we’re talking about probabilities of things in the world.
Perhaps causation is a relationship between a WORD for a thing in the world and the FACT of another thing in the world.
What do you think? Could causation be a relationship between words and things rather than things and things? — invizzy
Is this usefulness just brute fact, or can we hope to explain why this grammar is useful? — Srap Tasmaner
But I think you're saying less than you think you are. — Srap Tasmaner
The claim is that ‘cause’ refers to a relationship between the WORD for the cause and the effect rather than between the cause and effect itself. — invizzy
Mill's 5 methods to determine causation
1. Method of Agreement:
A B C occur together with w x y
A E F occur together with w t u
Ergo,
A is a necessary cause of w [when w, also A]
2. Method of Difference
A B C occur together with w x y
B C occur together with x y
Ergo,
A is a sufficient cause of w [when no w, also no A]
3. Joint Method
A B C occur with w x y
A E F occurs with w t u
B C occurs with x y
Ergo,
A is a necessary and sufficient cause of w
4. Method of Residue
A B C occur together with w x y
B is the cause of x
C is the cause of y
Ergo,
A is the cause of w
5. Method of Concomitant Variation
A B C occur with w x y
A results in w x y
Increasing/decreasing A causes increase/decrease (positive scalar correlation) or decrease/increase (negative scalar correlation) in w
Ergo,
A is the cause of w — Agent Smith
Koch's postulates are the following:
1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
However, Koch later abandoned the universalist requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera and, later, of typhoid fever. — Wikipedia
it seems like the obvious way to take "useful" here is to say it's an approximation, — Srap Tasmaner
Thanks for that article, — invizzy
Always when this, then that — Banno
Supposing that causation stands in need of explanation misunderstands that causation is fundamental to explanation. — Banno
the discovery of a mechanism of causation — Agent Smith
" ‘Always when this, then that’" sounds like absolute Determinism, or Fatalism. But Gnomon "advocates" Compatibilism : freedom within determinism. It assumes that human Will is a non-natural (artificial) Cause. By that I mean, human Culture has found ways to modify natural causation, to suit their own needs & desires. Would Nature put men on the Moon or Mars?her target is more determinism than causation, but there is a firm attack on the " ‘Always when this, then that’" (final paragraph) that ↪Gnomon and ↪Agent Smith
seem to advocate. It irritates me because (!) I maintain some sympathy for Davidson's treatment of human actions in causal terms. — Banno
I just read in Werner Heisenberg's book, Physics and Philosophy, that "causality can only explain later events by earlier events, but it can never explain the beginning". The First Cause. :smile:That out of the way, it's true that the mechanisms of causation themselves are a series of intermediate causal claims. — Agent Smith
I just read in Werner Heisenberg's book, Physics and Philosophy, that "causality can only explain later events by earlier events, but it can never explain the beginning". The First Cause. :smile: — Gnomon
" ‘Always when this, then that’" sounds like absolute Determinism, or Fatalism. — Gnomon
I'm guessing that Anscombe's assertion that "determinism is impossible" was based on Quantum Probability, Uncertainty and Indeterminacy. But early Quantum physicists (e.g. Einstein) argued that "god does not play dice". The implication being that Classical physics was based on an uninterrupted causal chain (i.e. no miracles). Eventually, Quantum physicists grudgingly revised their classical worldview, to include a bit of indeterminism, as long as it was confined to the invisible quantum level of reality.Anscombe points out that determinism is an impossible, or at least quite unnecessary, goal for physics.
One does not need compatibilism if cause does not necessitate determination. IF the physical world is not a clockwork mechanism - and it seems it is not - then there is room for free will without resort to compatiblism. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.