Talk:Causality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Epistemology Metaphysics

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Causality, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Time Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents 1 Mill’s Methods 2 no such thing as morality 3 Added: Derivation Theories 4 Delete 'Causality, nihilism, and existentialism'? 5 Hume 6 Physics? 7 Ceteris Paribus 8 Causality (physics) 9 Band Cause and Effect 10 Causality and Philosophy 11 Examples 12 Organizing Disambig Sections 13 Causality a Fact? 14 Some fundamental problems 15 Causality and logical implication 16 Removed content 17 Recent change 18 Disambig hell 19 Nihilism and determinism? 20 Causality, determinism, and existentialism section 21 Section on Spinoza 22 Clean-up 23 Aristotle was not the first to talk about Causality 24 ∴ 25 Probabilistic causation - example doesn't make sense 26 Corrected Session on Necessary and Sufficient Causality 27 Major cleanup 28 Junk bin 29 Time and causation 30 See Also 31 Redirect page 'Cause' 32 Opening paragraph mistake (I beleive) 33 Enormousdude 34 Talk/suggestions 35 process (philosophy)? 36 Should Read More Like Encyclopedia Entry 37 Four causes 38 Where's Hume 38.1 And Kant? 39 Split 40 Econometrics? 41 Indian philosophy section 42 Contradiction

[edit] Mill’s Methods

This should certainly include a discussion and prominent reference to Mill's Methods--Lbeaumont 22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no such thing as morality

Ridiculous to state that there is "no such thing as morality". Depends on the definition. It certainly doesn't empirically follow from the deterministic world view that morality doesn't exist. Morality is just another effect caused by the workings of the human mind, etc. Unless the authors want to get into morality, which is so vast a subject that it is best left to a subject by itself, I suggest this quaint reference be eliminated.

Norm

[edit] Added: Derivation Theories

I added (as of November 5, 2005) an important line of work in causation by the Nobel Prize Laureate Herbert Simon. I believe I correctly placed it, but I made up the term "Derivation Theories." This work was the root for much other work (for example, the 'probability theories', and the entire discipline of Causal Modelling, I believe) but is rarely taken in its own, much more universal and fundamental, right. I would not have made up "Derivation Theories" except that it seems to perfectly capture their discovery and cannot find any categorization of their often cited work anywhere. In any event, their work is unique and is certainly not the same as the other work cited. user: Robert Thibadeau

[edit] Delete 'Causality, nihilism, and existentialism'?

As it stands (as of October 13th, 2005), the section is an irrevelevant and simple-minded rant. Anyone else in favour? Thomas Ash

The association of Nietzsche with nihilism and claims that his later insanity abrogate his thought ("an example of what happens to nihlists", to sum up the position) is a misrepresentation in respect to the former and complete anti-Nietzsche rubbish in respect to the latter. Needs heavy editing if this section is to stay, including the title.

[edit] Hume

The section on Hume describes his views on induction, not causality (as of October 13th, 2005). Thomas Ash

[edit] Physics?

The topics "causality" and "causation" should be a "pointer page," if in fact there is a significant body of physics research about causality, that should properly be so titled. There is, of course, a very old tradition of analyzing the notion of causality in philosophy, which continues robustly to this day; philosophers, to my knowledge, don't pay much attention to what physicists have to say on the topic, but then, this isn't my area. Anyway, if indeed there is a body of physics research into causality per se, then we might have a causality (physics) page as well as causality (philosophy) or causation (philosophy) page. In any case, it's certainly the case that what physicists have said on the topic should not be billed as the only thing Wikipedia has to say on the topic.

A body of physics research into causality? I think that would be the entire field of mechanics... Jaleho

Actually, there is a better crossover between Physics and Philosophy in the area of Metaphysics, that defines things beyond Mechanics. Therein according to my enumeration, Mechanics consists of four major subcategories: Physics and Chemistry embody the scope of the "ordinary Mechanics" you are thinking of; but there is a broader Mechanics that includes Biological Evolution and the first human structure called "Orthodoxical Society." Why are these a valid single category of Mechanics? You'd better see my user page. But Causation is in ancient thought and modern defined as the thought underlying materiality and acting through the forces or Gods, affecting the mechanics in a miraculous way. Only in a rather flattened way is it only cause-effect of Mechanics alone.

--Xgenei 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a philosopher, not as a physicist, the following looks like a lot of pseudoscientific, pseudophilosophical rubbish to me. I'm familiar with Osher Doctorow from Nupedia, and I have serious doubts that anything from him deserves such prominent mention in any Wikipedia article. As for the physics, there might be something salvagable in it--for all I know, it's a good start, but I know nothing about physicists' approach to this otherwise purely philosophical topic, so I couldn't say. In the meantime, I'd like to request that a physicist (other than Osher Doctorow) have a look at this and give his or her opinion. --Larry_Sanger

I agree that the text below is mostly rubbish. AxelBoldt

---

Causality or causation in mathematics/physics may be considered to have begun its modern treatment by Professor Garrett Birkhoff of Harvard in the 1950s, who considered that causation is embodied in time-related differential equations (ordinary or partial) because they involve time and because they involve change through time whereby intuitively an independent variable x or t influences a dependent variable y, although derivatives/rates of change of y with respect to time (velocity, speed, acceleration, etc.) may also do the influencing.

Although David Hume in the 1700s had given up on the possibility of locating the exact connection involved in causality/causation, Birkhoff felt that differential equations involving time embody what (in historical/philosophical language) Hume had been trying to analyze. In reply to the question of how the influencing variable x at time t influences variable y at an immediately later time, which of course is in a sense incapable of formulation since there is no immediately later event, Birkhoff's PDEs (partial differential equations) and ODEs (ordinary differential equations) rely on limits, noting that lim [f(t + h) - f(t)]/h as h--> 0, when it exists, is the derivative f'(t), which is the instantaneous rate of change of f at time t, but can also be regarded as the influence of time t on an infinitesimally small increment f(t + h) when h is positive but approaches 0 (from the right). Although the approach to 0 from the left seems to complicate things, it does not change the above facts.

The next major step forward in causation/causality was its application to probability-statistics by Marleen and Osher Doctorow, in their paper "On the nature of causation", (Philosophy of Education Proceedings 1983), based on seminars and talks in the previous years in part, in which they formulated a probability-statistics criterion for causation/causality. See abstracts of 72 of their papers (publications, papers presented, technical reports, and some better internet contributions) at http://www.logic.univie.ac.at, Institute for Logic of the University of Vienna. After accessing the site, select in this exact order:

• ABSTRACT SERVER

• BY AUTHOR

• Doctorow, Osher and/or Doctorow, Marleen

[edit] Ceteris Paribus

I removed the paragraph:

In reality ceteris paribus analyses are always false. Causality is always multipolar. Only abstractions can create a circle with a single pen, in reality a circle is always caused by multiple forces that flux in a point. Such kind of Platonic causality, far more realistic than simple unicausal Aristotelian thought proper to western science, however has only been developed in Eastern philosophy.

• ceteris paribus ("all other things being equal") analyses are not "always false"; one can question their utility in a world where one cannot control "all other things", but this seems a bit over the top to me.
• Only abstractions can create a circle... is too poetic to make any sense; at any rate this assertion is not backed up by any argument.
• ... has only been developed in Eastern Philosophy. is contradicted by the paragraph following in the article, as well as by the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics (amongst others).

Not that my additions are flawless, but this just seemed rather non-NPOV to me.

Cheers. Chas zzz brown 23:38 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] Causality (physics)

I have moved a lot of what was in the "Physics" section of this page to causality (physics) and have added a link to that page. There was some text in the physics section that didn't seem to me to have much to do with physics, so it was placed under the new heading of "philosophy".

--Anakolouthon 22:41 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Band Cause and Effect

There is a band named "Cause and Effect", a consulting group http://www.causeandeffect.co.uk/ and a charity organization called http://www.causeaneffect.org/

I'm not sure what the best way to fit them in would be, seeing as the current Cause and effect page is nothing but a redirect. Jaleho - A WikiNewbie

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jaleho! I would suggest expanding that redirect page into a disambiguation page that lists all those items as well as listing, and linking to, this article. It might be a good article-building exercise for you. --Gary D 18:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: Jaleho, it's a good practice to date as well as sign your talk page entries; I usually just hit the button second from the right above the edit box, which does both. Had the contributors above done this, it would be easier for you to know that your Physics/Mechanics comment above was responding to comments made two and a half years ago whose authors have probably moved on. Cheers! --Gary D 18:18, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Causality and Philosophy

The Programming section of this article (IF...THEN...) is walking very close to the the common confusion of Logical Implication with Causality. It would be worth elucidating the differences.

The Nietzche section violates NPOV. Much of the entire article should probably be moved to a linked page on Determinism

Hume's view may not be accurately presented. He does not argue there might be some other intermediate causal explanation, but argues against causality entirely.

As pointed out in one section (regarding moon's gravity causing tides) there are problems with the temporal requirements for causal claims.

Lightning may be said to cause thunder; OR both lightning & thunder may be thought of as two manifestations of the same event (electrical discharge) which just happen to have a temporal separation. This argument hinges somewhat on the definition of lightning.

Neccesary vs. sufficient condition discussion would also be relevant. Also discussion (relevant to Hume) of the protype case of causality - Our linguistic framework that has us as agents in the universe.

--JimWae 22:30, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

The example using TCP, IP packets, and HTTP headers in the "Aristotle" subsection will be generally incomprehensible to most people who are not terribly familiar with computers (a massive subset, even of wikipedia readership). Trust me. In the social science PhD program at a prominent institution that I attend, most of the other graduate students don't know the real difference between the World Wide Web and the Internet. I think it would be better if one could reword the example in terms of something which assumed a less specific cultural background. Just a suggestion. (if no one objects, I'd rather use the example which Heidegger uses in The Question Concerning Technology, but I don't know when I'll have the time to type that up) --Fastfission 04:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing Disambig Sections

Does anyone have an opinion on moving the big chunk of text between the disambig and the table of contents down to the philosophy section, where it can be better blended with the text down there (some things seem to be repeated, or would make more sense closer together), and the top of the page being changed to something much shorter like "causality seeks to explain how causes and effects are related. Law, physics and philosophy all have their own ways of dealing with the concept" and then go into the sections?

--Jaleho 15:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causality a Fact?

It is interesting to note that causality is taken as an unquestionable fact. Since I have a serious objection (see my page: http://users.zipworld.com.au/~damir/cause_&_effect.htm), I'll take a liberty to add a sentence under Science. My explanation might be disputed - but the issue of degree of replication of an experiment stays. Also. I have noted that there were severl attempts to add a reference to my web-site followed by a prompt removal. I understand that it might be not "up to standard" required by Wickipedia - however, questions raised will not "go away" so easy.

Sincerely,

Damir Ibrisimovic

However, the issue of to which degree a scientific experiment is replicable has been often raised but rarely addressed. The fact that no experiment is entirely replicable questions some core assumptions in science.

• Why HOWEVER? Explain why such is a FACT - I gather you mean that not everything can be exactly the same twice - but when searching for causes, it is important to isolate the cause anyway, so other changes are part of the process - or are you saying that something else unknown that does not change might be relevant?

There are, essentialy, two kinds of views on causality. Some call them "hard" and "soft". The "hard" view as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_determinism holds that if all of the causes are known we should be able to compute the whole future of the universe. Basically - deterministic picture of our universe. The "soft" view holds that there is an element of chance in chains of causes and effects. Basically - probabilistic/deterministic picture. (There is also a mixture of both, since even "hard determinists" admit that "knowing all of the causes" is hard even to contemplate.)

This brings us to:

Scientists and skeptics may implicitly favour causal determinism because it does not allow for any supernatural explanations of reality.

There are two interesting things here:

• Implicit expression of belief (religion) that there are "all of the causes", although we might be knowing only few of them.

• The reason that such view does not does not allow for any supernatural explanation ironically leads directly towards a supernatural explanation. (Pierre-Simon Laplace)

The fact about replicability is here essential to properly outline these two views and have an unbiased approach. (If you wish, you might like to expand on this.)

I'm forming the third (tuning), but this does not have to be mentioned here, unless somebody thinks otherwise.

Sincerely,

Damir Ibrisimovic

ps: I'm new arround here and could not figure out to whom I'm speaking. My apologies for omitting salutation line.

[edit] Some fundamental problems

It's very difficult to talk about causality in everyday language. Maybe that is what is wrong with this article. A fundamental question probably should be handled in the topmost part of this article: Is it intended to describe what all kinds of people call "cause"? Or is it intended to describe the best thinking available on this subject? P0M 23:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causality and logical implication

Just a comment. If the difference between causality and logical implication is so important the distinction should be made much more clear. Saying that "something is allowed to go wrong" in the current explanation is vague at best. If the light doesn't come on, why exactly can't you conclude that the switch wasn't thrown? Is this a linguistic convention, or something deeper?

I have reworked the section and removed the stuff following. I think it is not helpful, and perhaps confused regarding the issue. I hope that my new section helps, if there are any further questions, please post. best, --Kzollman 06:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

1. In causal connections "something is allowed to go wrong" to prevent switch S from lighting bulb B, whereas logical statement allow no exceptions. If the bulb does not light, we are not justified in concluding the switch was not thrown, but if T is not a quadrilateral, we are justified in concluding T is not a square. (Throwing switch S is not a sufficient condition for lighting bulb B.)
2. We are justified in concluding (if we know the circuit arrangement in full is simple series) that if the switch is not thrown, then the bulb will not light; but we are not justified in saying that if Q is not a square, then Q is not a quadrilateral. (Throwing switch S is a necessary condition for lighting bulb B.)
3. Some uses of (if...then...) may appear "magical" if construed as causal: If you want ice cream, there's some in the freezer.
4. Some statements of material implication have no parallel to causal statements: If he's an expert, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Truth Table for Material Implication: Logical (IF...THEN...)

p	→	q
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	T
F	T	F

I think Bradford Hill's article is a place to start.[1] It was a very influential paper in epidemiology on the topic of causality. Causality differs quite significantly from correlation, something I think is frequently not appreciated. I think the causality article in this sense has some serious short comings.

The point is-- it is easy to make a robust correlation. I could surely make a great correlation with shoe size and intelligence ('cause newborns aren't that bright)-- that doesn't mean the relationship is causal. Nephron  T|C 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content

I have removed the following content from the introductory section. I think that it is awkward and hard to understand. Even beyond that, I think it gets too specific for the introductory section. If someone thinks its absence harms the article I would suggest rewording it and puting that stuff into an appropriate section (like the section on Hume). best, --Kzollman 03:58, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

But this definition is somewhat circular; what does it then really mean to say that A is a reason that B occurs? An important question in philosophy and other fields is to clarify the relationships between causes and effects, as well as how (and even if!) causes can bring about effects.

A causal relation between heat and water boiling:

• The heating came before the boiling
• Whenever water is heated sufficiently, then it boils

So sufficient heating is always, or consistently, followed by boiling.

While the perceived observance of causality is quite possibly the most basic pattern in human experience, David Hume held that causes and effects are not real (or at least not knowable), but are habits of our mind to make sense of the observation that A often occurs together with or slightly before B. All we can observe are correlations, not causations; from which we make inductive inferences.

[edit] Recent change

I have recently rearranged the page a bit. I think that things need to be rearranged somehow, although I'm not sure if the direction I'm taking it is best. I would love to hear some discussion of this! --Kzollman 06:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very nice.

On the problem in physics, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/421.htm which points out:

‘Children lose interest … because a natural interest in the world around them has been replaced by an unnatural acceptance of the soundness of certain views, the correctness of particular opinions and the validity of specific claims.’ – David Lewis, You can teach your child intelligence, Book Club Associates, London, 1982, p. 258.

The problems of speculation in physics about non-causual (purely mathematical) guesswork are discussed at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/ for example http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=230 where Peter Woit of Columbia University says: 'the danger is that there may be lots of ways of “quantizing gravity”, and with no connection to experiment you could never choose amongst them. String theory became so popular partly because it held out hope for being able to put the standard model and gravity into the same structure. But there’s no reason to believe it’s the only way of doing that, and people should be trying different things in order to come up with some new ideas.'

Gravity is a prime example of the need for causality since all purely speculative attempts at finding predictive equations for quantum gravity have failed. Causality is discussed at http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=706468&ln=en and in more detail at http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/

[edit] Disambig hell

Okay, the growing collection of disambig notes at the top finally drove me insane. I have made the following changes:

• Why now redirects directly to the song, Why (song).
• Effect is now a disambiguation page, with a reference here.

Also, I have removed the reference to the physics article. It has a reference under that subsection, which accords with other standards for specialized pages. Hopefully, we will have a whole bunch of subpages, and then we won't have space for all the disambig notes. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nihilism and determinism?

The article states that "Nihilists subscribe to a deterministic world-view in which the universe is nothing but a chain of meaningless events following one after another according to the law of cause and effect." Does this follow? A nihilist is simply someone who denies that the world has any meaning or value; determinism is neither a prerequisite for this view, nor follows from it. Many determinists are not nihilists (particularly compatibilists), and a nihilist could easily dismiss determinism as an attempt to impose some sort of order or meaning on the universe.--Cholling 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causality, determinism, and existentialism section

"In light of the difficulty philosophers have pointed out in establishing the validity of causal relations, it might seem that the clearest plausible example of causation we have left is our own ability to be the cause of events. If this is so, then our concept of causation would not prevent seeing ourselves as moral agents."

It's almost ironic that this statement is placed under a heading mentioning "determinism." Whether or not individuals, as agents, can originate causal chains is part of the determinism debate. I realize that "our own ability to be the cause of events" is not necessarily *absolutely* equivalent to "having enough 'free will' to originate causal chains," but contextually it's in dire need of clarification.

[edit] Section on Spinoza

I removed this, as it contained nothing but a long quotation from a commentator who merely explained the standard use of "cause" as used by Spinoza (and most of his contemporaries). The section was replaced with the edit summary: "revert. Samual Shirley's words *about* Spinoza are relevant for the 21st C. reader". This misses the point; I'm aware that the words were about Spinoza — it's just that they said nothing about what was individual about him, and a section made up entirely of a quotation isn't a good thing.

There is something to be said about Spinoza, and if I get time I'll make a start on it, but this wasn't it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

While copy-editing a section, I noticed that there are various sections of the article that read like personal essays, often with weasel-worded, uncited claims. The article also needs an overhaul with regard to proper style, wikilinking, etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotle was not the first to talk about Causality

Is there any reason for which the following line should not be deleted?

Aristotle is the first who saw that "All causes of things are beginnings; that we have scientific knowledge when we know the cause; that to know a thing's existence is to know the reason why it is".

Much before Aristotle was born (or caused to be born ;), references to the philosophy of causality were present in the Upanishads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads.

[edit] ∴

Why does ∴ redirect to this page? It should redirect to a discussion on the mathematical thing but I don't know what article that would be.07:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably redirected here because it means "therefore", which indicates a cause-and-effect relationship. However, as it isn't discussed in the article, you are right that it should point somewhere else, or be its own article. Timrem 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Therefore redirects here, so I guess unless it had it's own article, the symbol may as well redirect here as well. 'Therefore' is just a case of cause preceeding effect, so it seems reasonable to just have it as a redirect page. Richard001 07:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that "therefore" and the 3-dot symbol for it are both of them chiefly referents to logical inference, not causation. Native speakers of English would more likely write, "The Packers had a terrific defensive line, consequently they won the game," rather than "The Packers had ... therefore they won the game." Consequence is causal, inference is logical. On the other hand, "therefore" works better in this sort of context: "The Packers had more points than their opponents when time ran out, therefore they won the game." --Christofurio 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be given its own page and clarified as a symbol. It has a history and is commonly used by mathematicians and scientists. It is an important shorthand usage and should get its own page. 150.29.87.5 08:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probabilistic causation - example doesn't make sense

However, a worse point for the probability-raising account of causation is that it has some obvious counterexamples. Say Mary and John both want to break a window. Mary is about to throw a rock at it, but when she sees John throw she puts down her rock. John's rock manages to hit the window, and it breaks. However, Mary is a very good shot, and had an 80% chance of hitting and breaking any window she throws a rock at, while John is a bad shot, and only had a 40% chance of hitting and breaking any window he throws a rock at. Thus, although John intuitively caused the window to break, he actually lowered the probability that it would break (from 80% to 40%) by throwing, since he caused Mary to drop her rock rather than throw it.

This example is a direct conflict with the statement in the introduction:

Finally, the existence of a causal relationship generally suggests that - all other things being equal - if the cause occurs the effect will as well (or at least the probability of the effect occurring will increase).

The example introduces an outside factor which breaks ceteris paribus. The aspect in question is whether John's throwing a stone at the window will increase the probability that it will break, however Mary is a factor outside of this system, and can't be brought into the example unless she is part of the subject being investigated.

If a better example can be substituted this would be ideal, however I'm unsure whether an argument in which outside factors are not involved exists for this case. Richard001 22:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really: If John hadn't thrown the stone, Mary would have. So John's throwing of the stone caused Mary not to throw the stone (making her causaly relevant to the system) and thus overall, reduced the probability that the window would break. Remember that probabalistic causation theories make use of Counterfactual conditionals. Orgone 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it does - should the section be added back then? Richard001 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The section as it stands would need to be re-written to accommodate this counter-example as there no simple "the idea is that causes raise the probabilities of their effects" statement, perhaps there should be. Here is probaly the best online source of information on the topic: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/ Orgone 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

However, a worse point for the probability-raising account of causation is that it has some obvious counterexamples. ... Causation as such cannot be reduced to an increase or decrease of probabilities. The counterfactual approach to causation is not sufficient (-> Barukcic, Causality, Sec. Ed. p. 47, pp. 355-356. The mathematical problem of causation is solved. -> http:\\www.barukcic-causality.com\ or http://www.causation.de/. 217.252.99.191 18:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected Session on Necessary and Sufficient Causality

If 'x' is sufficient to cause 'y', then the presence of 'x' necessarily implies 'y'. If 'z' is allowed to hinder the occurrence of 'y', then 'x' is clearly not sufficient ('x' and not 'z' would be sufficient in this case). See the article Necessary and sufficient conditions. SaintCahier 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major cleanup

Here is a summary of all of my edits today: Edits by Chris53516. I re-organized the material, changed the reference style so that readers can jump to the references, and I reworded the introduction, along with minor edits along the way. The major content of the article, however, still needs to be revised and updated. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Junk bin

Author seems to be interested in throwing the concept of causality to the junk bin. However, scientists use the concept every day to establish facts, usually with causal IF/THEN statements. Author needs to demonstrate the viability of causality to recognize its usefulness to scientists. IOW, this essay needs more unbiased work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.91.155 (talk)

Huh? There is no "author" per se--there are many authors. Did you read the section on Science? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time and causation

The article should say more about causation and time: the possibility of causes occurring simultaneous with, or even after, their effects. 62.136.143.124 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

The 'See Also' section contains a number of links to psychology articles, articles on psycho-somatic phenomena, medical articles, and sociology articles that i dont believe are sufficiently relevant to the topic 'Causation'. I am going to start a cleanup of the See Also section, and categorise the links by subject: Physics, Philosophy etc. Orgone 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 1Z 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope people are happy with the new setup. In the end i removed Thomas theorem, Stigmata, miracle, Medical error, Flexner Report, Evidence-based medicine, Culture-specific syndrome and Cognitive dissonance from the section on the basis that the section was already very large, and i didnt feel that they were specifically relevant enough to causation. Orgone 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be ambiguity between the Statistics and the Sociology section. I know this article is of high importance to the Sociology Wikiproject, as i see it, Sociology is relevent to causation mostly through the subject of statistics, so how about we intergrate them? Orgone 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect page 'Cause'

The page 'Cause' redirects here. Would it be an idea to add the following template somewhere on this page (Causality):

Or could there be a disambiguation page 'Cause'? Wiki-uk 09:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph mistake (I beleive)

I may be mistaken, but shouldn't the line read twentyFIRST century? Or were these the prevailing assumptions and they only got formally described in 1949 by Max Born?

"up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.252.230 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Enormousdude

"It is worth noticing here that this is just Sowa's opinion - physicists themselves use conventional definition of causality and do not make such claim."

Please explain the "conventional definition" and name the physicists. Note that "an effect is the consequence of a cause" is tautologous and vacuous.

1Z 18:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is a complete mess, and yet it (causality) is a most basic concept, a most elementary idea. Fuzzform 03:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it yes, but deceptively so. Orgone 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree it is a complete mess. Artman772000 07:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000 lets start with a clear simple breakdown.

[edit] Talk/suggestions

The suggestion that disambiguation page needs to be in place is correct: This User supports it. Anyone know how to do that?

Cause has a mathematical sense, a philosophical sense, a sociological sense, a religious sense, an economic sense, a teleological sense, and so ...

This article is hard to read (imho), different threads, and not all of a good style.

cause and purpose need dictionary-type articles. As WikiPedia is NOT a dictionary, the proper Wiki solution should apply.

assistance from experienced editor is required.

any suggestions for improving this article -- on the Talkpage here.

&mdash Newbyguesses 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the disamg. idea. The brief section on causality in history/"the humanities" is especially confusing and could benefit by a room of its own. --Christofurio 14:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is VERY hard to read (see my comment two below). I would be able to follow it much better with the break-up you describe. Artman772000 07:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

[edit] process (philosophy)?

I wasn't sure so I thought I'd ask about using the process (philosophy) disambiguation in the first paragraph of the article. It seems appropriate for the context but it isn't as complete as process link. (Requestion 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

In 'Counterfactual theories', it is claimed that David Lewis suggests a counterfactual theory as a solution, however in his article "Causation" (OUP, 1993) he suggests it specifically to refute it. luke 6/06/07

[edit] Should Read More Like Encyclopedia Entry

There is a bigger problem with this page.

It is getting almost impossible to read by the layman. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia; not one man's unreadable treatise of the history of all thought on causation. Hit the high points, but in plainer English. Here is just one of scores of examples within the text: "the asymmetry of the causal relation is unrelated to the asymmetry of any mode of implication that contraposes."

I understand that causation is not a simple concept, but even so an "encyclopedia" entry should be readable and understandable by an intelligent, educated person without philosophical expertise or training. This is also not meant to be a forum for philosophers to debate the subtler points of causality theory to the nth degree. Remember, it is an encyclopedia. I would love to learn the high points about causality in a way that I can comprehend, but I can't here, and believe me I am no dummie (a well-read PhD student at a top-ten university - albeit not well-read in philosophy, causality, or logic, but I should be qualified to understand an encyclopedia).

(One solution to still keep the depth is to drill down with more subtle concepts in links. Check out something like the sections on finance or financial economics; these are huge complicated fields, but the layman can read and read, first getting the overview and then getting more depth as requested. I learned a lot there.) Artman772000 07:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

I generally consider myself to be the "layman" as your say. I'm a college graduate with zero background in philosophy and I can understand this article perfectly. But I fear dumbing it down, because causality is a complicated concept and if you try to distill it to the point that I think you are aiming for, you are GOING to lose some important information.

And also, 'please' put the subject on the subsection heading, not a Caps Lock induced plea to get people to read your comment. It just makes life easier for everyone if we have an accurate index of talk page discussions. Trusilver 07:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do doubt that you understood this whole article perfectly. I guess there is a sweet spot in there between too simple and too complicated. You know where I think this article falls. Artman772000 07:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)artman772000

I understand where you are coming from, but I feel the article is at that sweet spot already. Do I understand every single nuance of causality that is being explained here? of course not, it's not my field of study. But I don't expect it to be dumbed down to the place where I can automatically interpret it.

For instance, take a look at Bernoulli's principle. I was a US Air Force pilot and I understand this article completely. If someone told me that this needed to be turned into something anyone could understand I would balk. Becuase it's just something that can't be homogenized into a few paragraphs that anyone can understand. It's a subject that only someone with a very good grasp on aerodynamics can fully get.

By the same token, causality is an important and difficult concept. I think I would prefer not being able to handle every minor nuance and KNOW that the core message is intact, than have it given to me like "Causality for Dummies" and worry that the act of dumbing it down has irrevocably damaged part of its core meaning. Trusilver 07:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four causes

Should the Aristotelian 'four causes' be merged together somehow? And what about Proximate and ultimate causation, which I've moved from proximate causation today. Perhaps an article discussing the different types of causes all together, such as types of causes could be made? Richard001 07:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Hume

Surely he's ultra important on the subject?Larklight (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And Kant?

Mutual Causality: "In the table of categories in the Critique of Pure Reason (A 80, B 106), (8) Kant treats community or reciprocity as a logical concept under the category of relation. It is the mutually determining causality of one substance upon another (B109-112). Implying an interaction between active and passive substances, the concept corresponds to the disjunctive judgement." [2] --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split

What is the reasoning behind the proposed split? I think this is an interesting idea but I would want to be inherently cautious in approaching a split. Could the person who suggested the split explain what sorts of different articles this would be broken into, and why? Cazort (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The cleanup tag was placed in September 2006 by a user who has been blocked indefinitely.

The proposed split tag was placed by User:Piotrus on 18:44, 12 October 2006; his edit summary simply reads "{{Split}})". He's a very active user, specializing in DYK, but doesn't seem to have returned to Causality since then.

The article has problems, but the cleanup tag is too vague (a lot of changes have occurred in 17 months), and the split tag is distracting. I'm removing both. —Yamara ✉ 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Econometrics?

The use of causal relationships;

"In most tests of econometric theory, and certainly for evaluating public policy, the economists goal is to infer that one variable has a causal effect on another variable. Simply finding an association between two or more variable might be suggestive, but unless causality can be established, it is rarely compelling"*

• Pg. 13 Introductory Econometrics, 3rd Ed. Wooldridge Thomson Higher Education 2006

More should be explained in it's contribution to economics, using "ceteris paribus", as well as the larger picture implications it has on statistical analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcbeehler (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"According to Sowa (2000),[2] up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:"

Is this a typo? Is that supposed to say twenty-first century? If he described them in the twentieth century (1949), then how could they be used before the twentieth century?24.208.253.57 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian philosophy section

The Indian philosophy section was NOT a combination of nonsense and vandalism.

The first sentence was "The Upanishads (namely Amar Thakrar, Mehul Pateland Neil Kotecha) and some other texts (namely Karma sutras, Amar Dhillon and [[Sameer Gulati]) mention causality."

So I am changing it right away to a brief outline that makes sense, and will further expand this section at a later date.

--AbhinavaH (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

Wouldn't a sentence such as "If the first president was not George Washington, then it was George Washington" be logical according to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.125 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)