Question about causality Forum

[GAUL]

hey guys, I know this question may sound silly, but anyway...

I know that to show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur could strengthen the casuality, but how about when the effect does not occur, the cause does not occur? Could the latter one strengthen the casuality too, or just be irrelevant?

[Daily_Double]

I know that to show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur could strengthen the casuality, but how about when the effect does not occur, the cause does not occur? Could the latter one strengthen the casuality too, or just be irrelevant?

Short answer: Yes.

Reasoning: If you can show that when the effect does not occur, neither does the cause, and that's true, then you have defended the argument against an alternate cause producing the effect since everything is an effect in some way.

It's important to point out that there are two primary ways to Strengthen Causation: (1) Eliminate an alternate cause, and (2) Strengthen the sample/correlation on which the conclusion is based.

The first method has a variety of forms but they each function in the same way---they defend against an alternate cause. There are four ways to do this: show that when the cause occurs, the effect aways occurs; or show that when the effect does not occur, neither does the cause; or explicitly eliminate an alternate cause; or eliminate the possibility that the stated cause is not the cause (eliminate the possibility that the causal relationship is reversed). If either of the first two ways were not true (if the cause or effect could be produced without the other, then there are other causes and that renders the conclusion not necessarily true). If the third way were not true, then you have an alternate cause----hey that sounds familiar, oh right, that's because the first two ways do this exact same thing. The last way guards against a scenario in which the stated cause is not the only cause of the effect, or not ever a cause, but rather an effect of something else (the stated effect). All four ways defend against a scenario in which the stated cause does not always produce the stated effect because something else does.

The second method is pretty straightforward, when the conclusion is based solely upon data, if that data can be attacked, then the conclusion is not necessarily true. You'll simply defending against a possible interpretation of the information.

Because each of these ways are a result of a problem with the argument that you are defending against, it is helpful to identify the problem initially (is the problem with the data or the conclusion, or both?) and then prephrase a way to defend against one possibility that would lead the conclusion to be not necessarily true. So identify the flaw, then weaken a way that would weaken the argument.

[GAUL]

I know that to show that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur could strengthen the casuality, but how about when the effect does not occur, the cause does not occur? Could the latter one strengthen the casuality too, or just be irrelevant?

Short answer: Yes.

Reasoning: If you can show that when the effect does not occur, neither does the cause, and that's true, then you have defended the argument against an alternate cause producing the effect since everything is an effect in some way.

It's important to point out that there are two primary ways to Strengthen Causation: (1) Eliminate an alternate cause, and (2) Strengthen the sample/correlation on which the conclusion is based.

The first method has a variety of forms but they each function in the same way---they defend against an alternate cause. There are four ways to do this: show that when the cause occurs, the effect aways occurs; or show that when the effect does not occur, neither does the cause; or explicitly eliminate an alternate cause; or eliminate the possibility that the stated cause is not the cause (eliminate the possibility that the causal relationship is reversed). If either of the first two ways were not true (if the cause or effect could be produced without the other, then there are other causes and that renders the conclusion not necessarily true). If the third way were not true, then you have an alternate cause----hey that sounds familiar, oh right, that's because the first two ways do this exact same thing. The last way guards against a scenario in which the stated cause is not the only cause of the effect, or not ever a cause, but rather an effect of something else (the stated effect). All four ways defend against a scenario in which the stated cause does not always produce the stated effect because something else does.

The second method is pretty straightforward, when the conclusion is based solely upon data, if that data can be attacked, then the conclusion is not necessarily true. You'll simply defending against a possible interpretation of the information.

Because each of these ways are a result of a problem with the argument that you are defending against, it is helpful to identify the problem initially (is the problem with the data or the conclusion, or both?) and then prephrase a way to defend against one possibility that would lead the conclusion to be not necessarily true. So identify the flaw, then weaken a way that would weaken the argument.

Thank you!