Phil 1102: Critical Thinking September 15, 2005 Causal Reasoning & Causation.
-
Upload
aileen-hardy -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Phil 1102: Critical Thinking September 15, 2005 Causal Reasoning & Causation.
Phil 1102: Critical ThinkingPhil 1102: Critical Thinking
September 15, 2005Causal Reasoning &
Causation
So…So…
Anyone wuznuggle?
Causal FallaciesCausal Fallacies
• Confirming Evidence• Post Hoc ergo propter hoc• Failure to consider a common
cause.
When causation?When causation?
• A perhaps more appropriate question: when is causation perceived?
MichotteMichotte
• Causation?
MichotteMichotte
To Play with…To Play with…
Cartesian (and pre-Cartesian (and pre-modern) causationmodern) causation
• All causation happens instanteously when objects are touching. – Therefore, there is no causation at a
distance.– Therefore, there is no such thing as
space!
Hume’s ContentionHume’s Contention
• NO necessary connection, just repeated observation of one event following another.– We, through experience, develop laws
such as ‘Events of this type follow events of that type’.
– Events that fall under these laws are instances of causation.
– REGULARITY theory
RegularityRegularityWhat is necessary for the fan? Sufficient for the fan?
RegularityRegularityIs the cue necessary for the 8 ball falling into the corner pocket? Is it sufficient? What about the earthquake?
PartialPartialIs the cue ball partially responsible for the 8 ball? Is the non-existence of the earthquake also?
Partial InhibitoryPartial InhibitoryIs the switch’s being off a partial inhibitory?
Lewis’s Contention: Lewis’s Contention: CounterfactualCounterfactual
Some y is a cause of x iff if y had NOT happened, x wouldn’t have also
OverdeterminationOverdeterminationSome y is a cause of x iff if y had NOT happened, x wouldn’t have also
Anscombe’s contention: Anscombe’s contention: realismrealism
• Cause is productive, basic, real. Not analyzable in terms of ‘necessity’, ‘sufficiency’ or Lewis’ modality.
• Cause just is.
How to determine cause: How to determine cause: MillMill
• Method of agreement
How to determine cause: How to determine cause: MillMill
• Method of difference
Real case: Real case: SemmelweisSemmelweis
• Vienna general hospital. Death rates in maternity ward attended by Doctors from ‘childbed fever’.– 1844 = 8.2%, – 1845 = 6.8%– 1846 = 11.4%.
• Death rates in maternity ward attended by midwives:– 2.3%– 2.0%– 2.7%
Difference 1: the priest’s Difference 1: the priest’s approachapproach
If the priest’s approach was causing the higher death rates, then changing the route by which the priest entered in the doctor’s should reduce the death rate in the doctor’s ward.
Changing the route by which the priest entered did not reduce the death rate in the doctor’s ward
Therefore, The priest’s approach was not causing the higher death rate.
Difference 2: Cadaverous Difference 2: Cadaverous mattermatter
If cadaverous matter (or something similar) were not the cause of childbed fever, then it would be very unlikely that requiring doctor’s to wash their hands in chlorinated lime should have an effect on the death rate in the doctor’s ward.
Requiring doctor’s to wash their hands in chlorinated lime did have an effect on the death rate in the doctor’s ward
Therefore, it is very likely that cadaverous matter (or something similar) was the cause of childbed fever.
How to determine cause: How to determine cause: MillMill
• Method of concomitant variation
How to determine cause: How to determine cause: MillMill
• Method of residues
CorrelationCorrelationFinal Score & Post Test v Reading Report
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of modules read
Fin
al S
core
Post Test Score
Final Score
Causation?Causation?
• Reading is sufficient for doing well on the exam
Final Score & Post Test v Reading Report
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of modules read
Fin
al S
core
Post Test Score
Final Score
Causation?Causation?
• Reading is necessary for doing well on the exam
Final Score & Post Test v Reading Report
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of modules read
Fin
al S
core
Post Test Score
Final Score
Causation?Causation?
• Reading is necessary but not sufficient for doing well on the exam
Final Score & Post Test v Reading Report
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of modules read
Fin
al S
core
Post Test Score
Final Score
Causation?Causation?
• Reading is necessary but not sufficient for doing well on the exam
Final Score & Post Test v Reading Report
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of modules read
Fin
al S
core
Post Test Score
Final Score