Explanation vs cause Forum

[SpiritofFire]

I've always treated explanations as separate from casual factors. But I'm having difficulties actually trying to explain the difference between the two, so maybe they're the same.

Take this example:
John being barred from getting on the ride, the Supreme Scream, is explained by the fact that he is under 5 feet tall.

Based on this, it's so easy to infer that being under 5 feet tall caused his rejection.

Dangerous assumption? Perhaps, if you consider something like:
The open field explains why the superior tanks of the Nodd were destroyed by the lighter, more maneuverable fighting vehicles fielded by the GDI.

Did the open field cause the destruction of the tanks? That just sounds silly. However, it's easier to acquiesce to a statement like: The destruction of the Nodd tanks were caused by the GDI units attaining maneuverability afforded to them by the open field. It shifts the relationship away from the field to the opposing tanks and relegates the field to a contributing factor, which makes things more palatable.

But if I'm okay with it being a contributing factor, then why do I have problems with saying it is a cause? If it has to do with the individual words, specifically the word field, then that creates problems with abstraction. The tank example, I would boil down to: A explains B, just as I would for the first example regarding John.

What do you think? Is there even a difference?

[Christine (MLSAT)]

I've always treated explanations as separate from casual factors. But I'm having difficulties actually trying to explain the difference between the two, so maybe they're the same.

Take this example:
John being barred from getting on the ride, the Supreme Scream, is explained by the fact that he is under 5 feet tall.

Based on this, it's so easy to infer that being under 5 feet tall caused his rejection.

Dangerous assumption? Perhaps, if you consider something like:
The open field explains why the superior tanks of the Nodd were destroyed by the lighter, more maneuverable fighting vehicles fielded by the GDI.

Did the open field cause the destruction of the tanks? That just sounds silly. However, it's easier to acquiesce to a statement like: The destruction of the Nodd tanks were caused by the GDI units attaining maneuverability afforded to them by the open field. It shifts the relationship away from the field to the opposing tanks and relegates the field to a contributing factor, which makes things more palatable.

But if I'm okay with it being a contributing factor, then why do I have problems with saying it is a cause? If it has to do with the individual words, specifically the word field, then that creates problems with abstraction. The tank example, I would boil down to: A explains B, just as I would for the first example regarding John.

What do you think? Is there even a difference?

It seems to me that what you're playing with is the difference between something that seems to be THE cause of an event and something that is A cause, or a contributing cause - the issue is just with general language use.

The syntax of "the open field caused the destruction" sounds off, because we tend to use that particular syntax to indicate a primary cause. In your example, it seems that there's a causal chain: open field --> maneauverability of the GDI units --> destruction. When something is part of a chain, or an indirect cause, we tend to use syntax that makes that clear.

I don't know that there's so much a huge logical difference here as there is simply a syntax issue in how we regularly use the language of cause in normal life.

[SpiritofFire]

I've always treated explanations as separate from casual factors. But I'm having difficulties actually trying to explain the difference between the two, so maybe they're the same.

Take this example:
John being barred from getting on the ride, the Supreme Scream, is explained by the fact that he is under 5 feet tall.

Based on this, it's so easy to infer that being under 5 feet tall caused his rejection.

Dangerous assumption? Perhaps, if you consider something like:
The open field explains why the superior tanks of the Nodd were destroyed by the lighter, more maneuverable fighting vehicles fielded by the GDI.

Did the open field cause the destruction of the tanks? That just sounds silly. However, it's easier to acquiesce to a statement like: The destruction of the Nodd tanks were caused by the GDI units attaining maneuverability afforded to them by the open field. It shifts the relationship away from the field to the opposing tanks and relegates the field to a contributing factor, which makes things more palatable.

But if I'm okay with it being a contributing factor, then why do I have problems with saying it is a cause? If it has to do with the individual words, specifically the word field, then that creates problems with abstraction. The tank example, I would boil down to: A explains B, just as I would for the first example regarding John.

What do you think? Is there even a difference?

It seems to me that what you're playing with is the difference between something that seems to be THE cause of an event and something that is A cause, or a contributing cause - the issue is just with general language use.

The syntax of "the open field caused the destruction" sounds off, because we tend to use that particular syntax to indicate a primary cause. In your example, it seems that there's a causal chain: open field --> maneauverability of the GDI units --> destruction. When something is part of a chain, or an indirect cause, we tend to use syntax that makes that clear.

I don't know that there's so much a huge logical difference here as there is simply a syntax issue in how we regularly use the language of cause in normal life.

Thanks for the reply, it's good to have MLSAT back me up before I consolidate the two in the way I attack the questions. I've noticed that I've been using the same weakeners and strengtheners for both of these, so it's been nagging at me for a while.