Understanding Causal Reasoning

• Causal reasoning involves arguments where the conclusion is a cause-and-effect hypothesis.
• The term 'causal argument' does not refer to a specific argument form.
• Causal relationships are important in liberal arts, sciences, and everyday life when explaining events.
• Critical thinkers evaluate evidence for causal claims and are aware of causal fallacies.

Meanings of 'Cause'

• References to 'the cause' often simplify complex causal situations.
• The word 'cause' has different meanings depending on knowledge and interest in the causal relationship.
• A causal connection in a statement can have multiple interpretations.
• The sense of cause and effect may not always be clear in causal statements.
• The notion of cause can be vague, and multiple senses may apply.

Different Senses of 'Cause'

• Proximate cause: The causal event closest to the effect under investigation.
• Agent as cause: Attributing the cause to an individual or entity with intention.
• Cause as a necessary condition: An event required for the effect to occur.
• Cause as a sufficient condition: A condition where the effect is always present when the condition is present.
• Cause as a collection of independently necessary and jointly sufficient conditions.
• Probabilistic cause: An event that makes the effect more probable.
• Identifying multiple causes: For every effect, multiple causes can be identified.

Causal Chains

• Causal chains of events can be complex, involving many links.
• The 'cause' may be identified based on who is legally responsible or what should be on the death certificate.

Causal Networks

• The analogy of a 'causal network' may be more appropriate than a 'causal chain’.
• Picking one event out of the complex as the cause requires justification.
• Sometimes, an aspect of a complex causal process is identified as the cause because it is more susceptible to control than other events.
• Examples are shown for real-world scenarios.

Overdetermination

• Most events are over-determined; many contributing factors can be cited.
• It is difficult to determine exactly what is required for an event to take place.

Statements Having the Form 'A is the Cause of B'

• Proximate cause: The causal event nearest in time and place to the effect.
• Agent as cause: Attributing the cause to an individual or entity with intention, motive, or purpose.
• Causal responsibility to an agent typically presupposes that the agent intended the effect.

'Cause' as a Necessary Condition

• An event is required in order for the effect to occur, without which the effect cannot occur.
• Attention often focuses on causally necessary conditions when interested in eliminating some undesirable effect.

'Cause' as a Sufficient Condition

• Whenever the condition is present, the effect is present as well.
• Exposure to high levels of radiation causes cancer.
• Isolate a single causally sufficient condition, which is closely linked to important causal factor that, against a background of a complex of necessary conditions, is especially proximate, or interesting, or easy to control.

Independently Necessary and Jointly Sufficient Conditions

• A set of causal conditions are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for an event to occur.
• The conditions necessary to cause germination in viable grass seed are: (1) water is applied in appropriate amounts, (2) suitable atmospheric temperature (3) light, and (4) oxygen.

Probabilistic Cause

• Heavy smoking causes lung cancer is an antecedent condition whose occurrence makes the presence of the condition under investigation more probable than it would be in the absence of the antecedent condition.

Eliminating the Reality of Causes

• David Hume suspected the notion of 'cause' is a human construct for organizing experience.
• The notion of cause and effect is too vague to tell anything about reality.

Hume's Analysis of Causation

• Hume analyzed statements of the form 'A causes B,' aiming to justify causal inferences.
• Hume could find nothing in the ideas of striking and subsequent motion to connect the two events of billiard balls colliding.

Hume's Features

• A is next to B in time and space (no action occurs at a distance).
• A occurs before B (an effect never precedes a cause).
• Whenever A occurs, B occurs (event types A and B are constantly conjoined).
• Hume's model fails to capture many senses in which we recognise causal hypotheses as credible.
• The most advanced theory in physics, for example, presupposes the probabilistic sense of cause.

Aristotle's Account of Causes Existing in Reality

• Aristotle maintained that every entity shares with every other the basic material substrate of all physical reality, but each thing has an essence unique to its kind, and the particular identity of each thing is dependent upon four causes: formal, efficient, material and final.
• An example of a formal cause is the design or blueprint of a house, whereas cement or wood is the material cause.

Hume's Rejection of Causes Existing in Reality

• Hume's objection to Aristotle's theory is basically that there is no way to establish the existence of the hidden essence of any thing.
• Hume rejects as idle any claim that is neither inductively testable nor deductively demonstrable.

Modern Objections to the Notion that Causes Exist in Reality

• The vague term 'cause' and its cognates should be regarded as fill-ins or place-holders used in informal talk.
• Drop talk of causes altogether and use mathematical functions and equations instead to represent the phenomena.

Examples

• Newton's thermodynamics (laws of motion)
• Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion Replaces Ptolemy's Picture of the Universe
• Boyle's Law of Ideal Gases Replaces Causal Talk of Alchemy

Pragmatist View

• A causal explanation is best understood as a strictly practical set of instructions about what to do to stop or to induce a certain effect.

Causal Reasoning

• This provides utilitarian functions and is supportable in terms of principles that justify asserting a cause exists, then that is sufficient to justify presenting a causal hypothesis as likely to be true.

John Stuart Mill's Methods of Causal Reasoning

• The goal is to formulate principles of causal reasoning as formulated by John Stuart Mill.
• The article explains events and circumstances with confidence.

Mill's Methods of Causal Reasoning

• The method of difference
• The method of agreement
• The joint method of agreement and difference
• The method of concomitant variation
• Mill's methods are strictly practical, and quite ineffectivewhen used in isolation from each other.

Method of Agreement

• This is to be used to inventroy foods eaten during the flight by with the complaints of travellers disembarking a flight to Accra.
• The method compares the antecedent factors of all the cases that share the effect under scrutiny
• This method does not guarantee that the cause has been found.

Method of Difference

• Suppose that a couple on the flight were served nearly identical meals. But since the husband is allergic to eggs, he did eat the vegetarian bean and cucumber sealed instead, and he gave a few tastes of that dish to his wife.
• The method compares circumstances where cases had egg causing illness from cases where there were no eggs and no illness.

Joint Method of Agreement and Difference

• Here the cases that have the effect under scrutiny are grouped together, and the cases that do not have the effect.

Method of Concomitant Variation

• Cases or groups antecedent circumstances effect or condition studied

Causal Hypotheses

• If, however, the condition or event under study varies in degree or strength from one case to another, then the method of concomitant variation is a useful tool for justifying causal hypotheses.

Causal Fallacies

• Many of the errors in making causal links can be spotted by careful consideration.

Error objective

• Recognising examples of error in causal analysis

Identified examples

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Confusing cause with effect
• Ignoring a common cause
• Genetic fallacy