Advertisement
hume famously wrote that cause-effect relationships were not observable. they had to be inferred. his famous examples was the sunrise, which we assume will occur every morning, but not with any air-tight proof.
yet we speak of causality all the time, and not without meaning and results.
repeatability and reproducibility, both terms that problematically assume identity across multiple trials is possible, are bulwarks of the scientific method.
so, when can we speak of cause and effect? are we to take these concerns and end the practice, or are these caveats only to keep in mind at all times, advancing carefully with our causal claims?
and when does it make sense to talk about cause-effect relationships? are there some situations that are more appropriate than others?
yet we speak of causality all the time, and not without meaning and results.
repeatability and reproducibility, both terms that problematically assume identity across multiple trials is possible, are bulwarks of the scientific method.
so, when can we speak of cause and effect? are we to take these concerns and end the practice, or are these caveats only to keep in mind at all times, advancing carefully with our causal claims?
and when does it make sense to talk about cause-effect relationships? are there some situations that are more appropriate than others?
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: the nature of causality
Sun, October 5, 2008 - 6:08 PMBy the time we pop out of the womb our lips are puckered ready to go to work. Our vocal cords are sufficiently developed to make the outside world aware of and to bend to our slightest discomforts. Fresh off the blocks we're already shaping our environment. We've already integrated in with the causal chain before we have so much as a clue what is going on. And over time our repertoire of actions becomes refined yet we're still working with the basics: food, warmth, security, curiosity.
In time, pretty quickly actually, we begin to learn, even before we have what would be termed a legitimate sense of self (whatever exactly that is), that there's a limit as to how far we can go to get what we want. Layer after layer of complexity gets laid down as new circuitry begins to kick in, and at some point we end up coming up with our story, our personal take how everything had fallen into place like it did. Each of our respective stories comes out a little different, though fortunately for all of us there are chapters we'll more or less agree upon with one another. It would seem to me that the plots of each of our stories are laid down exclusively via cause and effect through the workings of what we might call our own personal black boxes, which we inevitably prod and probe most delicately - as to not damage the mechanism to the point where it might begin to malfunction. So, it becomes a question of how we can partake in the game of cause and effect without shorting this mechanism out. And while there are gads self-protection circuits preinstalled in the innards of the thing, there always seems to be a question as to whether or not they'll work as advertised.
-
Re: the nature of causality
Sun, October 5, 2008 - 6:34 PMThat is because the philosophical use of a term is different than the common use.
In the common use, all you need is reasonable effectiveness.
The scientific use is slightly stiffer, requiring that it not be disproved. But you will also note science doesn't actually directly talk about causality.
In most philosophical uses you need hard identities and certainty.
Using neuroscience to try and further determinism is a misuse of science. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 10:13 AMyou guys want to read probably the least fun books of all time? the oxford readings collection on causality, called "causation."
www.amazon.com/Causation-...ef=pd_bbs_5
it has broken my will to live on several occasions.
i would say it is rather definitive though.
-
-
Re: the nature of causality
Sun, October 5, 2008 - 8:04 PMSince all things and phenomena that we humans experience are ultimately merely imputation, then it follows that all is either perception or subsequent inference. Science only demonstrates that what the thinker thinks, the prover proves. That thought and that proof are however equally devoid of inherent existence. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 7:40 AMScience doesn't care about inherent existence.
-
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 8:12 AMYou are right, science is consumed with it. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 6:59 PMmi: You are right, science is consumed with it.
No. Science doesn't about inherent existence at all. That is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
Apparent existence is all science requires or is interested in and it is taken at face value.
Despite the fact that some Buddhists get all caught up in the notion, even Buddhism doesn't care about inherant existence except to not it doesn't exist for compounded objects. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Tue, October 7, 2008 - 7:12 PMSwarm, you refer to Buddhism as if it inherently existed. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 4:15 PMHow did I end up being the only one in the room who doesn't know what "inherent existence" means? Did you guys all hash this out while I was in the foyer taking a bong hit?
Alas google dictionary, you are of no help. www.google.com/search
-
-
Re: the nature of causality
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 8:55 PMwell, i thought i knew, and then michael did a back-flip on me and i'm not so sure now... perhaps inherent existence has no inherent existence...? -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Sat, October 18, 2008 - 3:12 PMNot so much a back flip I suppose though it may require a certain facility of mind in that we are using precise language to describe something that will be refuted as not existing at all - how does one even do that!?
Here, we have a definition of "science" from dictionary.com
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge, equiv. to scient- (s. of sciéns), prp. of scīre to know + -ia -ia]
—Synonyms 7. art, technique, method, discipline.
I don't think anyone here has trouble accepting these meanings. Where things get tricky however is that we have a notion of 'truth' embedded along with a system or method in our definition yet we also have the flexibility of viewing science as a synonym of 'art'. How convenient! According to this description all my endeavors ranging from software development, to music, and even my spiritual practice are science.
I think it is important to discern first what truth we are talking about, what method we are following, and the precision with which we are measuring for our results to have any meaning or, as scientists are concerned, reproducibility. And this is where in my view we get hung up in equating systematic reproducibility with inherently existent. One is convenient and the other immeasurable, or empty, in the first place. So, what I am talking about is known in my tradition, method, science, art, religion - take your pick - as ultimate truth, and not conventional truth. My actual practice is the union of the two truths - the middle way.
An example might help. Because we can all see a car, go for a ride in it, park it, and call it 'ours', yet, when we examine it closely, it is only a collection of parts. Search as we may, the car is nowhere to be found either among the collection of parts, or separate from it - which are the only places we have for it to exist right? It exists only in the minds of the observer and is imputed conventionally as a sum of parts called 'car'. But an inherently existent car independent of either its parts or separate from our apprehension does not exist.
We can apply this same exercise to any and all observable objects and phenomena and find that ultimately they do not exist separately from the mind that ascertains - they are entirely dependent upon this imputation - and thus do not exist. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: the nature of causality
Sat, October 18, 2008 - 3:15 PMor, I should say, do not possess any inherent existence...
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: the nature of causality
Sun, October 19, 2008 - 9:16 PM<"We can apply this same exercise to any and all observable objects and phenomena and find that ultimately they do not exist separately from the mind that ascertains - they are entirely dependent upon this imputation - and thus do not exist.">
This is why I find metaphysics such a confusing approach to most subjects. First, good luck getting people to agree what is meant by "existence," let alone "inherent existence." And even when you can get people to agree, they still don't agree on which kinds of things should be in which class.
Earlier it was mentioned that a car is really just a collection of parts. But obviously each part contains a collection of parts, or at least a collection of molecules. And each molecule can be broken into atoms, and... how far do we really want to take this? And why consider one level of description more "real" than the others?
From a cognitive perspective, we have nervous systems that tune-in some but not all aspects of our environment. Nature "designed" our nervous systems to map our experience into schemas of categories, and they do this with remarkably flexibility. Whether we use a physical schema, a common-sense schema, a social one, or some other type depends on what the situation calls for. One makes that choice pragmatically. If you're designing a car engine, you're going to need some physics. If you only want to fix one you can sometimes get by with just macro-level know-how.
I don't understand the motivation for calling one of these more "real" or "existent" than the other. Why not just think of them as different maps that serve different sets of needs?
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 20, 2008 - 5:40 PMscience is no big deal. we do it all the time. it's just about discerning patterns and relationships in a manner that is empowering and predictive. no microscope needed, no degree. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Wed, February 25, 2009 - 6:34 PMfurthering a discussion on the nature of causation seems prudent.
is causation nothing other than a recognition of the continuity of matter in time? how could something be physical and not caused by anything else? and if you say it can't, but the mind or will isn't physical, then please explain how the non-physical is able to cause something physical to happen.
-
-
-
-
Emptiness
Fri, October 17, 2008 - 9:23 PMit's one thing to say that everything is arbitrary and contrived, it's something else to say everything can change.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 10:16 AMmichael, do you believe there is a pathway to knowing inherent existence? since science mediates, why doesn't thought, or meditation, or perception, or simply being embodied?
i do believe we can connect with inherent existence, but i'm not sure it's as important once you've done so. i think it calibrates you properly in a way, but life goes on through the window of our body. before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 2:28 PMI believe the path to enlightenment involves discarding the notion of inherent existence. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 6, 2008 - 6:34 PMdispensing with it and discarding it are entirely different yet interdependent exercises. -
-
Re: the nature of causality
Mon, October 20, 2008 - 7:48 AMYou can have different frames of reference that will measure different times and distance between event A and B. All frames of reference will measure the same seperation between events A and B. Seperation is the square root of the time squared less the distance squared. Note that if the distance squared is larger than the time squared, then the seperation will be imaginary as you will have the square root of a negative number. What this means is that you can not tell if event A happened before or after event B. Causality could not be known.
-
-
-
-
