Causation: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Causation » Causation

Causation
Is it worth it? Outlook on Causation.

Causation

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 06/28/09 - 03:39 PM: Subject: Causation	#1
Causation - Is there any philosophical point in it? You know, you have Causation with its concepts of cause and effect. I really think I agree to some extent with Hume on the issue. Say we issue causation in words and leave it to the sciences to describe it. If we are to find causation in itself, what do we expect from it? It seems strange to me that one is supposed to account for causation in metaphysics, the philosophical sense. When I think about it, I find the solution is to leave it to the sciences which do in fact describe nature, something that also includes the nature's workings. This is not a negative attitude to the philosophical investigation of causation as such, but there may be a more limited answer to it than we expect. We have causation in biological, physical, psychological, and chemical systems. So how is it supposed to be uniform? I remember reading something about the surprise and slight shock of people a long time ago when they have learned about Action From A Distance, ie. gravitation. That is to say, I think causation lies entirely within the sciences. To contemplate causation is to contemplate every science in its potential and structure. This is final! I'll never say another word on Causation. Maybe I'll be back on this thread to give a better outline. There is a book called Causation and Explanation by Stathis Psillos, but I'm sorry to say I've not read it. What are your thoughts on Causation? What is your opinion on my writing? Cheers!
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

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4157

Posted 06/28/09 - 05:14 PM:	#2
Whether we like it or not causation is overwhelmingly used as a means of justification both with and without any references to either formal logics or scientific evidence. If something sounds reasonable to someone they may use it in causal arguments to justify anything and everything. For example, the idea that "life is hell" (ie- life is suffering) can be used in causal arguments to justify doing whatever you want because no matter what you will suffer greatly, or to justify making attempts to relieve suffering. No matter what arguments we might produce for a given action (whether causal or not) in the end it is our emotions that provide the motivation for us to think, justify, and act and, by definition, emotions are irrational. Although such arguments might sound more like psychology than philosophy, philosophy still forms the foundation upon which psychology is based. Philosophers can then either choose to focus on what they observe in themselves and the world around them, whether it be through personal or scientific observation, or they can go off into a corner on their own and try to shut it all out. Good luck with trying to shut out your own awareness and emotions. That being the case, the question of whether or not there is any philosophical point to causation ultimately comes down to whether the individual experiences any emotional interest in the subject and this can change from day to day and context to context. However, I will go out on a limb here and suggest that everyone, without exception, routinely uses the concept of causation. Of course, we could choose to argue whether or not causation is meaningful at all in some kind of metaphysical sense, but from a scientific viewpoint words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Thus from a personal, social, and scientific viewpoint causation is used ubiquitously and because its definition is so broad in metaphysics it is debatable whether or not the term has any meaning in that context. Sorry, but I can't provide a more detailed response to your question because it is so broad. If this helps to inspire any refinements

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 392

Posted 06/28/09 - 06:48 PM:	#3
wuliheron, I say that describing causation should be done mainly by the sciences ie. laws, explanations, correlations etc. When one considers this, I think there is little left to do for philosophy in describing causation. Do you disagree with this? I have mentioned Hume and a book. You have no references from where I can understand your angle. Please, do you have any references of what you write? wuliheron wrote: No matter what arguments we might produce for a given action (whether causal or not) in the end it is our emotions that provide the motivation for us to think, justify, and act and, by definition, emotions are irrational. I take that to be your own opinion. My emotions are subsumed under my rational mind and I find justification to be the most rational activity of all. wuliheron wrote: ...the question of whether or not there is any philosophical point to causation ultimately comes down to... I also think there's a philosophical point in causation, but that's not the issue and certainly not the emotions connected with it all. I'm really interested in your philosophical viewpoint of causation. I find causation to be described in a fragmented way after the science has been carried out. It's therefore my reasoning that description of causation gives little to the sciences nowadays. The question is whether the sciences can be fine all on their own in this regard. Isn't the philosophical reasoning concerning causation falling short in its contribution? Maybe it'll be worthwhile to track the history of causation, but my best guess is that science will provide the revolution to causation because it has a broader intake to its approach on analysis. Everyone, What are your thoughts on Causation? What is your opinion on my writing? Please, be to the point. References are highly appreciated. You don't need to write with the feelings on the outside of your skin. Will there come anything out of the speculation on causation? To what extent is that speculation precise and effective? You are invited to include your view on Hume's writing on the subject.
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

Legion
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 06/28/09 - 07:38 PM:	#4
Aetixintro, I agree with you that we should expect science to tell us more about causation than philosophy per se. But I also think that we cannot forget that science has its epistemological and thus philosophical underpinnings. In any case, we know that science constructs models. And by looking at the formal side of these models we can extract something about the nature of causation. If you are interested then I highly recommend reading the book Life Itself written by the biologist Robert Rosen. Therein he details the concept of a model and its epistemological foundations. He also presents a model of organisms called (M, R)-systems, metabolic-repair systems. And he touches upon what this may imply about causation.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4157

Posted 06/28/09 - 10:00 PM:	#5
Philosophy is also the foundation upon which the sciences are built. Hence, to say science should do the work is to deny that the philosophies set the stage for the work that the sciences do. A good example of this and my other statements is Pragmatic Functional Contextualism. http://www.contextualpsychology.org/ This is the philosophy whose basic assertion I quoted, that is, "Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given contex." Such assertions commonly begin as philosophical statements, but when empirical evidence is found to support them (as occured in this case) they become scientific and can found new branches of the sciences (in this case, Relational Frame Theory.) One outcome of this particular theory is that the meaning of the word "causality" changes with the context in which it is used and the function(s) it serves. Thus we can say that a philosophical assertion about the meaning of causality has gone on to inspire new scientific interpretations of causality. The reverse is certainly possible and the sciences can inspire new philosophical interpretations of causality as, again, occured when the work of radical behaviorists first inspired contextualists to invent Pragmatic Functional Contextualism. It is demonstably a relationship of give and take and benefits both philosophers and scientists.

phenomenon
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 06/30/09 - 08:00 AM:	#6
Aetixintro wrote: wuliheron, I take that to be your own opinion. My emotions are subsumed under my rational mind and I find justification to be the most rational activity of all. I also think there's a philosophical point in causation, but that's not the issue and certainly not the emotions connected with it all. Hmm, I think that a way to expand this argument would be by saying that arguments require justification, justification requires setting priorities and providing reasons, and the only way to set priorities is by referencing how you "feel" about a certain subject (manifested in our intuitive dispositions/ what you feel makes sense). Standard infinite regress. wuliheron, In Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding he shows how it's difficult to justify a causal link in virtue of the link having been observed to take place many times before. In other words, just because you've seen something happen many times before does not necessarily mean that it will happen once more, there are too many possibilities that could interrupt the future event from taking place. Or we just might be being deceived about the nature of the causal link.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4157

Posted 06/30/09 - 09:13 AM:	#7
phenomenon wrote: wuliheron, In Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding he shows how it's difficult to justify a causal link in virtue of the link having been observed to take place many times before. In other words, just because you've seen something happen many times before does not necessarily mean that it will happen once more, there are too many possibilities that could interrupt the future event from taking place. Or we just might be being deceived about the nature of the causal link. That's just the standard uncertainty associated with any metaphysical assertion. I'm not arguing that we should adopt causality as an irrefutable fact, merely that it is widely used whether correctly or not and that the definition of causality changes with the context and function it serves. Debating the actual existence of causality is a rather futile occupation imo since it is a metaphysical idea. It is much more productive to analyze how people use the term, in what contexts, and what functions it might serve. A map, even a wildly incorrect map, can be useful in the right circumstances. For example, paradoxes are routinely used as shortcuts for figuring out what will and will not work. An analysis of the contexts and functions in which causality is used can provide insight into any number of things.

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