"only because" Forum
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm
"only because"
Does anyone know how to diagram "only because" according to formal logic rules?
does it introduce sufficient or necessary?
thank you !!!
does it introduce sufficient or necessary?
thank you !!!
- dowu
- Posts: 8298
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm
Re: "only because"
to be completely honest, i dont know where i saw it anymore... i made a note of it during my study session but foolishly didn't take note of the page number.
could i make one up? haha.. i will take the LSAT only because i want to go to law school (?)
could i make one up? haha.. i will take the LSAT only because i want to go to law school (?)
- dowu
- Posts: 8298
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm
Re: "only because"
Edited for a far better response below.
Last edited by dowu on Tue May 22, 2012 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- airbud
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:01 pm
Re: "only because"
"If and only if" indicates BOTH a sufficient and necessary condition, which, when diagrammed, makes a double arrow. For example, "A if and only if B" really means "If A, then B" AND "If B, then A". Combined, it looks like:
A<---->B
"If and only if" is not the same thing as "only because".
"Only because" is an interesting phrase because despite the fact that it contains a common necessary condition indicator ("only"), it is actually is a CAUSAL phrase. "Only" modifies the "because" and suggests that the thing referred to is the ONLY CAUSE of the given effect. For example, "People sleep better after eating large meals. Nutritionists hypothesize that this is only because the digestive process uses the blood and energy needed to keep the brain alert, and not the result of sugar depletion". The digestive process is a posited cause for the given effect of sleeping better. In this case, it's hypothesized to be the only cause.
You can diagram a cause-effect relationship, but it cannot be treated as a conditional relationship. I suppose "only because" could be used in a conditional sense, but I doubt it, since the word "because" is a huge red flag for cause-effect.
Hope this helps!
A<---->B
"If and only if" is not the same thing as "only because".
"Only because" is an interesting phrase because despite the fact that it contains a common necessary condition indicator ("only"), it is actually is a CAUSAL phrase. "Only" modifies the "because" and suggests that the thing referred to is the ONLY CAUSE of the given effect. For example, "People sleep better after eating large meals. Nutritionists hypothesize that this is only because the digestive process uses the blood and energy needed to keep the brain alert, and not the result of sugar depletion". The digestive process is a posited cause for the given effect of sleeping better. In this case, it's hypothesized to be the only cause.
You can diagram a cause-effect relationship, but it cannot be treated as a conditional relationship. I suppose "only because" could be used in a conditional sense, but I doubt it, since the word "because" is a huge red flag for cause-effect.
Hope this helps!
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:00 am
Re: "only because"
Hi, this is great explanation, thanks!airbud wrote:"If and only if" indicates BOTH a sufficient and necessary condition, which, when diagrammed, makes a double arrow. For example, "A if and only if B" really means "If A, then B" AND "If B, then A". Combined, it looks like:
A<---->B
"If and only if" is not the same thing as "only because".
"Only because" is an interesting phrase because despite the fact that it contains a common necessary condition indicator ("only"), it is actually is a CAUSAL phrase. "Only" modifies the "because" and suggests that the thing referred to is the ONLY CAUSE of the given effect. For example, "People sleep better after eating large meals. Nutritionists hypothesize that this is only because the digestive process uses the blood and energy needed to keep the brain alert, and not the result of sugar depletion". The digestive process is a posited cause for the given effect of sleeping better. In this case, it's hypothesized to be the only cause.
You can diagram a cause-effect relationship, but it cannot be treated as a conditional relationship. I suppose "only because" could be used in a conditional sense, but I doubt it, since the word "because" is a huge red flag for cause-effect.
Hope this helps!
But I'm a bit confused by the distinction between cause-effect relationship and conditional relationship.
If A causes B, can I diagram the following?
A-->B
The interpretation of this diagram as conditional relationship (if there is A, there must be B; if there is B, there may or may not be A), in my opinion, is consistent with "A causes B".
In the past, I have not treat conditional and causal relationship differently, and it seemed not to cause me any trouble (not that I am aware of!). Can you recall some of the situations where mixing them up lead to mistaken answer?
Thanks a lot!
- Lyov Myshkin
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:28 pm
Re: "only because"
smoking cigarettes causes cancer.omegaomega wrote: In the past, I have not treat conditional and causal relationship differently, and it seemed not to cause me any trouble (not that I am aware of!). Can you recall some of the situations where mixing them up lead to mistaken answer?
Thanks a lot!
Smoke -> Cancer
if this were a conditional statement, we could do this
If you haven't gotten cancer (or won't get cancer, phrasing is weird with causal statements because of the temporal aspect), then you aren't smoking cigarettes. (which is clearly a false statement)
I personally believe that the temporal aspect of causal statements make them not as logically rigorous as pure conditional statements. But I've read a lot of Kant, so that could be biasing me.
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm
Re: "only because"
i'm still a bit confused...
So cause statements can't be reduced to conditional?
And "only because" is a cause statement without conditional inferences?
So cause statements can't be reduced to conditional?
And "only because" is a cause statement without conditional inferences?
- Mr.Binks
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:49 pm
Re: "only because"
180Lyov Myshkin wrote:smoking cigarettes causes cancer.omegaomega wrote: In the past, I have not treat conditional and causal relationship differently, and it seemed not to cause me any trouble (not that I am aware of!). Can you recall some of the situations where mixing them up lead to mistaken answer?
Thanks a lot!
Smoke -> Cancer
if this were a conditional statement, we could do this
If you haven't gotten cancer (or won't get cancer, phrasing is weird with causal statements because of the temporal aspect), then you aren't smoking cigarettes. (which is clearly a false statement)
I personally believe that the temporal aspect of causal statements make them not as logically rigorous as pure conditional statements. But I've read a lot of Kant, so that could be biasing me.
- Lyov Myshkin
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:28 pm
Re: "only because"
hahaMr.Binks wrote:180Lyov Myshkin wrote:But I've read a lot of Kant, so that could be biasing me.
the term 'because' doesn't necessarily indicate a causal relationship. it just indicates a premise.lawschoolplease1 wrote:i'm still a bit confused...
So cause statements can't be reduced to conditional?
And "only because" is a cause statement without conditional inferences?
for example:
that syllogism is valid because its argumentative structure is 'modus tollens'. <- doesn't really indicate a causal relationship. it definitely is an argument with a supporting idea which is the basis for the concluding idea. but with causality it all gets a bit fuzzy.
look, i think the best way to interpret weird phrases like 'only because' is basically to put it in the context of something that makes sense to you. i mean, you must have heard someone say that to you before. the key is to extract the context in which they said that to you. once you understand the situational context, you know when it can and cannot be used.
for me, i would ask myself the following question: 'in what scenario does it make sense to use the phrase "only because"..' and I would start making up scenarios, like..
A republican governor was elected governor of California, despite the fact that California has pretty much always been a blue state, only because the Democratic governor was playing chicken with california's budget.
Then, I would think of what that scenario actually means, which I think to be the following: If the democratic governor had not been playing chicken with the budget then there would be a snowball's chance in hell for a republican to be elected governor, even if that republican was once the terminator.
You're inevitably going to run into phrases that don't make sense to you. It's not enough to know what this one means, you have to learn how to be able to make an educated guess about what a phrase means on the spot.. at least, that's what I think it takes to really excel at this test. They love throwing weird curveballs, and they'll keep doing it.
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 pm
Re: "only because"
oh wow, thank you so so much!
I didn't realize there was a difference between cause and conditional statements!!!
thank you!
I didn't realize there was a difference between cause and conditional statements!!!
thank you!
- Lyov Myshkin
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:28 pm
Re: "only because"
no problem! glad my little rant was helpfullawschoolplease1 wrote:oh wow, thank you so so much!
I didn't realize there was a difference between cause and conditional statements!!!
thank you!
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login