Can causation ever be demonstrated?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Can causation ever be demonstrated? » Can causation ever be demonstrated?

Can causation ever be demonstrated?
As opposed to correlation?

Page: 1 2

Can causation ever be demonstrated?

Vague Abstraction
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 56

Posted 06/06/09 - 01:56 PM: Subject: Can causation ever be demonstrated?	#1
I understand that when the gasoline instrument in the dashboard of my car tells me that my tank is close to empty, I will probably become immobile if I do not get more gas - because, I assume, there is causation between my lack of gas and inability to drive my car. However, isn't it possible that my car is actually remote controlled by the CIA to stop when the meter is low? In such a case, a lack of gasoline is not the reason why my car stops. I mention this because it seems to me that almost everything we take for granted as causation is actually correlation. Where are the genuine examples of causation?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: Borneo Island ... no, really

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3618

Posted 06/06/09 - 04:19 PM:	#2
People make that assumption, but it is a fallacy. It is a natural psychological effect. Some people suffer severe guilt from the mistaken assumption that they caused something horrific to happen. Our brains are hard-wired to look for cause and to pick an emotionally satisfying solution, at least temporarily. In trying to identify potential causes, there are some standard tests. The cause has to occur before the effect. The cause has to have a connection to the effect. Without the cause, the effect does not occur. In this case, you can't observe the CIA pushing a button and you running out of gas to see if one precedes the other, so it fails the first. If you don't find any kind of transmission device hooked up to your gas line, it fails the second. If you keep your car heavily shielded from transmission, does it still run out of gas? Implicitly, this cause-and-effect is not reproducible since other causes could be at work. By these three criteria you have only postulated a correlation. It doesn't show causality.
I do seem to remember a process where you people ask me questions and I give you answers, and then I ask you questions and you give me answers, and that's the way we find out things. I think I read that in a manual somewhere. -- Haywood Floyd 2010

Aetixintro
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008
Location: Near Oslo, Norway

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 696

Posted 06/06/09 - 07:10 PM:	#3
I just like to remark that causation is usually considered a metaphysical issue and is equally difficult. I think I can say right away that no-one can in an exact way demonstrate or describe causation. We can point to endless occurrences that we take for cause and effect, but we will always be set apart from it.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

NoodlesHighChief
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
Location: West Africa

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 43

Posted 06/07/09 - 03:57 AM:	#4
Causation certainly must exists with relation to certain substances (res extensia, not res cogitons). But it seems that we need to define causation a little more carefully. Take the example of striking a match. Does the friction generated caused by the striking action cause the match to ignite? Many would say yes. But what if we are in an vacuum. The match will not ignite if struck because there is no oxygen. If we keep striking the match in the vacuum and then reintroduce oxygen can we now say that oxygen is the cause of the fire burning on the match? Some people try to get around extraneous factors like this by referring to a ceteris paribus clause which says "with other things the same." So with other things the same, the friction caused by striking the match is the cause of the flame. But the "things" the ceteris paribus clause needs to hold as "the same" are so numerous, and each one could potentially be a referred to as a cause in a certain situation that the clause seems to be a somewhat useless.
"This morning, I will practice an extra twenty minutes of yogic discipline, after which the pain is banished to a cul-de-sac in a remote suburb of my conscious mind." - FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 06/07/09 - 11:42 AM:	#5
I’ve been told by minds greater than my own (and it makes some sense to me) that our notion of causality includes the notion of entailment. Most of us believe that various phenomena entail one another. And I would say that this belief is a cornerstone of science. However I’ve also been told that the belief that there are entailments between phenomena is open to rampant skepticism. And to such a skeptic there is little to distinguish science from paranoia. As for me, I’m not that skeptical. I will continue to believe that phenomena can entail one another.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

NoodlesHighChief
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
Location: West Africa

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 43

Posted 06/07/09 - 12:30 PM:	#6
I am unfamiliar with this concept of entailment Legion. Is this a metaphysical or epistemological claim? Is an effect entailed in a cause or a cause entailed in an effect? To refer back to the OP's example, if a car's gas tank light comes on (the effect), is that phenomena entailed in the low level of gas in the tank (the cause) or is it the other way around?
"This morning, I will practice an extra twenty minutes of yogic discipline, after which the pain is banished to a cul-de-sac in a remote suburb of my conscious mind." - FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 06/07/09 - 12:43 PM:	#7
NHC, I think you ask great questions. I wish I was in a position to immediately answer them. Unfortuntely I'm not. I'm still coming to grips with the concept of entailment myself.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 360

Posted 06/07/09 - 02:22 PM:	#8
I think expectation of a cause effect relationship is fundamental to our nature. It is even fundamental to all animals Why would my cat chase birds if she did not expect to catch them as an effect? I would think that Darwinians would throw their heft in support of this idea. In order to survive there must be at least adequate rate of cause-effect. The philosophical problem is with imagining that this probable relation is always true, of necessity. It is not. But in some sciences, it can be. Most sciences are inductive and probabilistic. But many mathematical laws in physics are certain, necessary, and universal. In theory, effect always follows cause. That is, all else being the same, ceteris paribus, hold the rest of the world for a sec, predetermined. Except for that darned experimental error, of course.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . Ask a foolish question, get a foolish answer

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4568

Posted 06/07/09 - 06:22 PM:	#9
We are both rational and irrational beings, meaning causality is both fundamental and irrelavent to us at the same time. Thus we look for casuality when we cannot find it, and find it when it does not exist.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: Borneo Island ... no, really

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3618

Posted 06/07/09 - 08:53 PM:	#10
The OP said "demonstrated", so I pointed out the rules of causation for empirical evidence. It is possible that even something apparently following all the rules is actually a mistake, but the rules exist to try and clear away as many mistakes as possible. There are still a number of fallacies to watch out for. We tend to assume that everything has exactly one cause, when it might have several, (like the example of oxygen, friction and the proper chemicals all needing to come together to cause a match to ignite). I also think there is a completely different category of mutually connected systems that don't get covered by these mechanical rules. Does the wind cause a sailboat to travel forward or the partial vacuum on the other side of the sail and the resistance of the keel in the water, (one question I spent a lot of time on in physics)? I accept that there are natural fallacies. Our brains are hard-wired to think the sun is always directly above our head when we interpret shadows. It works good enough for practical reasons that we don't have to constantly analyze scenery and light locations.
I do seem to remember a process where you people ask me questions and I give you answers, and then I ask you questions and you give me answers, and that's the way we find out things. I think I read that in a manual somewhere. -- Haywood Floyd 2010

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.