You're getting at a human-centric bias? If so, sounds plausible, but can you develop a more specific example? — Baden

In terms of time reversed. The 'cause' of our existence would see us 'born' in a variety of ways (usually after being dug up or rising from ashes), yet all would die under the same circumstances in some woman's womb.

In this situation we could notice patterns that relate to 'prior to' life (the commonality of burning/burying in forwards time) but the actual 'start' of life would be a purely arbitrary matter - death occurs in many ways.

You can also imagine time sped up too if that sits better with you. What occurs immediately prior to would be regarded as the Cause, but if time is appreciated at a faster pace then my hand knocking something off of a table may be regarded as the Cause in a slower sense, yet if sped up the Cause of the object falling form he table may be viewed as the result of someone else putting it there.

The strength or weakness of the cause varies by perspective. Correlation can certainly be a red herring, but sometimes what people have regarded as a red herring for some time turns out to possess some affect upon an outcome through processes previously unknown.

I would say this is also a cultural bias not just a human bias. The way we view time varies from culture to culture. Animism would be regarded as some less apparent 'cause' because there would be particular concept of causation in early cultures (especially if our earliest ancestors were non-languaged peoples). With literacy language becomes more ordered, and prior to literacy of any kind there would be mnemonics as a means of ordering, yet no real concept of ordering in the sense we think today.

In some cultures today we see prepositions of time differ quite dramatically, with some using 'size' to measure time with, "a small time ago" where others view the future as "behind" or "below".

In this sense I am suggesting that causation is a 'belief' rather than a concrete reality. It seems almost like the equivalent of when children acquiring a theory of mind, yet we are still besotted with our Causal view even though it is minimal in scope preferencing the immediate over the long-term. We are temporally short-sighted, and necessarily so, so as to avoid immediate dangers (this would be the human bias part). Our Cultural bias has led us to create a definitive view of Causation, but it is at least partly a construction.

Turning to Isaiah Berlin in The Hedgehog and The Fox:

Freedom of the will is an illusion which cannot be shaken off, but, as great philosophers have said, it is an illusion nevertheless, and it derives solely from ignorance of true causes. The more we know about the circumstances of an act, the farther away from us the act is in time, the more difficult it is to think away its consequences; the more solidly embedded a fact is in the actual world in which we live, the less we can imagine how things might have turned out if something different had happened. For by now it seems inevitable: to think otherwise would upset too much of our world order. The more closely we relate an act to its context, the less free the actor seems to be, the less responsible for his act, and the less disposed we are to hold him accountable or blameworthy. The fact that we shall never identify all the causes, relate all human acts to the circumstances which condition them, does not imply that they are free, only that we shall never know how they are necessitated.
- I.Berlin, p.

It is the part in bold that can allow us to view the human-centric view (as Baden put it) as something unquestioned.

Note: This is a critique of the Sociology. Something Tolstoy was wholly opposed (whom Berlin is writing about) to in the era of historicism in the 19th century.

To say that causation (C) is direct or indirect or anything else is to tell a story. The story is never true, but it can be useful.

Why are some stories useful and other ones not useful? Seems to me that "stop drinking, it's the cause of your liver disease," is true in a way that "take this snake oil, it will cure your liver disease," or "stop taking hot showers, they are causing your liver disease," are not, no?


If not, should someone who fears lung disease stop smoking? If this would be "useful" why?

That is, C is a useful descriptive fiction that in the story itself is taken to be true. The mistake is to unreflectingly suppose that what is true in and for the story is true outside of and beyond that context.

Asbestos only causes disease within the context of a fiction? I suppose this is true or Roundup too; "our product only causes disease within a certain story context." Maybe Bayer should use this defense in court. Unfortunately, I don't see the jury buying it.

As J.S. Mill once said, "one must have made some significant advances in philosophy to believe it."

Surely it useful for partisans of Donald Trump to claim he won the popular vote "in a landslide) in all his elections. Are they just as right as the official tallies showing him losing by millions of votes?



lol, my thoughts exactly. Reading further, I'm still totally unclear about what is being said.

When the sun rises it heats the ground. The causal linkage here seems pretty direct. When the Mets give up a hit it certainly seems like this is caused by the Dodger's players' bats hitting the ball.

Asbestos only causes disease within the context of a fiction? — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're missing my point. One way for you to see it is to try to explain exactly how asbestos causes illness. And you will see that asbestos never did and never will cause any illness.

The idea is that "cause" is an informal, convenient shorthand for complicated events that with respect to the events themselves is almost or entirely irrelevant, a fiction - while in terms of its usage, of course being true. Or another way: what exactly is a cause? I don't think there is any such thing as a cause - except, again of course, as convenient descriptive fiction. And as I said above, people get to mistaking the useful fiction for a reality in its own right.

"Cause," then, properly regarded, is like "truth." We can certainly talk about them, and usefully, but it's a big mistake to think they exist in themselves. In the case of "cause," people supposing there are such things look for or posit first causes or "uncaused" causes as being actual, often to ground a theology that they can represent as real. And of course having such a flaw deep in the foundations of any belief system can have explosively destructive consequences.

And you will see that asbestos never did and never will cause any illness...

The idea is that "cause" is an informal, convenient shorthand for complicated events that with respect to the events themselves is almost or entirely irrelevant, a fiction

I see, so it was wrong for jurors to award damages against tobacco companies, pesticide manufacturers, etc. on account of their products causing diseases? I presume the answer is here "no" and I presume that you also wouldn't put asbestos or lead paint in your child's room.

Or another way: what exactly is a cause? I don't think there is any such thing as a cause - except, again of course, as convenient descriptive fiction

This is an abuse of the word "fiction." Children get real brain damage from lead paint.

But let's even allow your theory some room, you still have yet to explain why some fictions are "convenient" or "useful." Why is this?

Here is my position: it is useful to believe that smoking or asbestos will give you lung disease because these things do in fact cause lung disease. It is useful to believe that running in front of a train will kill you because being run over by a train causes death.

Cause," then, properly regarded, is like "truth." We can certainly talk about them, and usefully, but it's a big mistake to think they exist in themselves.

I am not sure what it would mean for truth to "exist in itself," as opposed to simply "existing?" Truth exists though no? Else your statement simply cannot be true.

And of course having such a flaw deep in the foundations of any belief system can have explosively destructive consequences.

Presumably not as destructive as actually believing things like "'sticking my hand or my child's hand in a fire will cause me to suffer burns' is a 'fiction.'" If one actually believed this, and wasn't using terms like "fiction" in an entirely equivocal way, it seems quite dangerous indeed, but then again no one actually acts as if they believe this sort of thing is true.

Causation and the natural world being "complicated," is not grounds for saying it doesn't exist either.

Truth exists though no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Does it? Truth is a noun, by assumption a person, place, or thing. The only "thing" it can be is an abstract noun. That is, truth as a genus, its species being true statements, the only thing them having in common being truth. So, no. Truth (itself) not an existing thing.

Here is my position: it is useful to believe.... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Bingo! And if informally you want to say "cause," not a problem (for me). But if formally you want to assert that the cause exists, then it's a fair question to ask what, where, when, why, and how it exists. And that a difficult - and I think ultimately impossible - set of questions to answer.

Judicial uses of "cause" is another topic, but I will observe that judicial usage does indeed take cause as a useful fiction in the story being told. That is, for the purposes of the story, tobacco and asbestos do cause diseases. At this point I can only conclude that you are using words with less care than the OP requires. He asks about causes without troubling, apparently, to even think about what a cause is, much less to say what he thinks it is. But you can do that, or if I've missed it, be good enough to point me back to it.

Bingo!

You have once again refused to elaborate on why some stories are useful and some are not. Is this impossible to explain? Or are all stories equally useful?

and I think ultimately impossible - set of questions to answer.

I think this total nescience is unwarranted. It is understood why sticking your hand in boiling water causes burns and pain for instance. You seem to be holding to the standard that one must understand everything in order to claim to understand anything.

All right. To cases: what is a cause? Above, third from the top, I used an example of a use of dynamite and then asked what caused the result. Not a rhetorical question. Maybe you'll try an answer?

Nor do I disqualify the use or deny the usefulness of the term in appropriate usage and understanding. Nor, finally, are you even right. I worked with asbestos so many years ago that if it caused diseases, I'd have had them. And I don't. So the categorical statement that "asbestos causes disease" is categorically false. And this, really, isn't about asbestos or any thing else. It is about the usage and understanding of language and the traps and rabbit holes that people can fall into or walk into eyes wide shut.

Btw, never saw "nescience" before; a good word to know (ty) and now there's seven of us.

When the sun rises it heats the ground. The causal linkage here seems pretty direct. When the Mets give up a hit it certainly seems like this is caused by the Dodger's players' bats hitting the ball. — Count Timothy von Icarus

When the sun rises it heats the ground. (Causal Perspective)

If played in reverse, when the 'sun rises' the it 'heats' the ground. (reverse-Causal Perspective)

When the sun is up the ground is hot. (Correlational Perspective)

Is our perspective of the world built upon the principles of Correlation OR Causation? Does one come prior to the other? If not, then what?

I would also add that there is a clear difference between inanimate and animate objects when it comes to contemplating causation. The two examples you give are vastly different - which is part of the problem I have with causation.

I think “distal” is a better term than “ultimate” because ultimate causes are never really ultimate, and are always also proximal to some effect in a chain. — Baden

I see your point about "ultimate" causes never really being ultimate, as they’re always proximal to something else in a chain. Personally, I prefer the term "necessary cause," especially when applying the conditio sine qua non test ("but for" test). The idea is that if X hadn't occurred, the entire chain leading to A wouldn’t have happened. So, in practice, you look for the most proximate cause where this test holds true.

But this might just be my legal upbringing in Dutch law, where we assess which damages naturally follow from a tortious act or negligence. The focus is on finding the most direct necessary cause that can be reasonably linked to the effect, rather than something more abstract like an ultimate cause.