Causality is the relationship between a cause and effect, or one event that is a consequence of the first. However many philosophers theorize that it is not the causes we see, we merely see the correlations between events. Correlation happens when two or more events are more or less likely to occur together than separately, for example I am more likely to wear shorts when it is hot hence there is a correlation between it being hot and wearing shorts. Yet, if I said "I wear shots no matter if it is hot or cold." I am illustrating that no correlation exists between it being hot and my wearing shorts because the two will occur both separately and together, the one does not depend on the other as it will be hot whether I wear shorts or not just like I will wear shorts whether or not it is hot.
Let us go back to the first example, where there was a correlation between wearing shorts and it being hot. How are the two related? For this example it is unlikely that my wearing shorts caused it to be hot, but it being hot caused me to wear shorts. Now if we look at a bigger atmospheric picture, something else caused it to be hot like the earth's proximity to the sun so actually the proximity of the earth to the sun caused both it to be hot and me to wear shorts. Yet, sometimes correlation occurs by total coincidence, for example most times I go to Starbucks Ramon is behind the counter. I am not stalking Ramon and I am pretty certain that Ramon does not make his schedule around me. I go into Starbucks infrequently and it different times of the day so it is mere coincidence that Ramon is behind the counter. I did not cause him to be there and he did not cause me to be there. It is from correlations that we can come to know about causes.
Mill's Method for knowing causes can be broken down as the following:
1. Agreement: If every time event (E) happens, the same event or events (C) always happens before (mixed in with other events (X), then C causes E.
2. Difference: If, E occurs, C happened before, but when E doesn't occur, C wasn't there before, then C causes E.
3. Joint: For all the collections of events one sees, E happens iff C occurs first, then C causes E.
4. Concomitant Variation: If variations in how the E-event occurs match variations in the C-event, then C causes E.
5. Residues: If you have a events "X", and events "Y" occurring later, but you know from past experiences applying this method that some events in X cause others in Y, then whatever is left in X causes whatever if left in Y.
Unfortunately there are problems with Mill's Methods all of which can be summed up with Hume's Problem of induction. Mill's Methods rely on inductive reasoning as Mill's Methods assume nature and causation are stable, The Principal of the Uniformity of Nature (as induction uses the past, I have always worn shorts when it was hot, to have knowledge of the future, I will always wear shorts when it is hot). Hume would argue that just because I have always worn shorts on hot days in the past it is unreasonable to say I always will, maybe I buy a new skirt that I want to wear on a hot day. However, to be fair to Mill and induction, Hume argued that, instead of a radical skepticism in which everything beyond what we presently see or remember is in complete doubt, a kind of practical skepticism should be used. If you are supposed to pick up your friend at a bus station whom you haven't seen in a month but the last time you saw her she was 5ft tall and had short brown hair it is ridiculous to look at a 6ft tall man with long blond hair and think it might be her. Yet Hume would argue that just because she has always had short brown hair does not mean she did not dye it since you last saw her or that she is wearing a wig now...basically Hume advocates for commonsense and if commonsense includes some amount of induction than such inductive reasoning helps a human being to function. Hume's problem with induction is mainly trusting it solely for knowledge and having no doubt that the future will be like the past. Now back to Mill's Methods. If you notice that every time you water your plants with Coca Cola they wilt and they don't wilt when you water them with water Gatorade, or Snapple, then it makes sense to see a correlation exists between watering your plants with Coca Cola and their wilting, to reason that Coca Cola is the cause of their wilting and to thus know for the future that if you water your plants with Coca Cola they will probably wilt.
No comments:
Post a Comment