The principle of 'cause and effect' in science.

[Oswy]

Hi,

In a thread - here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-determinism-choice-t150175/index.html) - in which I've asked for opinions on the issues surrounding 'free will', 'determinism' and so on, discussion has turned to the issue of cause and effect as an explanatory tool with scientific force.

To my surprise I'm encountering a few posters who reject the idea completely and wondered if there are many scientists or science students here who reject the cause and effect 'model' or 'principle'.

Any thoughts?

[Widerstand]

Can you clarify what you mean when you say "cause and effect as an explanatory tool"?

[Oswy]

Can you clarify what you mean when you say "cause and effect as an explanatory tool"?

Examples would be:

1) Smoking is a cause of lung disease, the effects of which include illness or death.

2) Nuclear fusion in the sun causes the emission of radiation, the effect of which is the warming of the earth.

3) Sudden movement of the earth's crust is a cause of earthquakes, the effect of which is damage to buildings.

4) Kicking a football causes it to move through the air with the effect of it landing somewhere else.

[red cat]

Examples would be:

1) Smoking is a cause of lung disease, the effects of which include illness or death.

2) Nuclear fusion in the sun causes the emission of radiation, the effect of which is the warming of the earth.

3) Sudden movement of the earth's crust is a cause of earthquakes, the effect of which is damage to buildings.

4) Kicking a football causes it to move through the air with the effect of it landing somewhere else.

Who is rejecting all this ? :confused:

[Oswy]

Who is rejecting all this ? :confused:

Well AugustWest replied to me here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-determinism-choice-t150175/index.html) with this:


There is no such thing as "cause and effect."

In the first place, are you willing to argue that we (as humans) have the ability to understand all the events which make up a singular "cause?" And are we able to understand when an "effect" begins and ends? Or when that "effect" is itself another "cause?"
I would think not.

In the second place, assuming that our collective ignorance is not sufficient argument, the idea of "cause and effect" is (like the idea of "natural laws") an extension of human behavior.
For prior to believing that events were determined by some natural laws, we thought all events occurred due to personal beings and their wills (polytheism). Given that our relations are results of our wills (i.e. our souls/spirits interact via willing), the projected souls of things (such as the ocean) interact via willing as well. Remember when rain was a result of the gods being pleased or displeased with our behavior?
Likewise, the notion of cause and effect is a result of this initial projection of human beliefs onto non-human happenings.

and this is what Rosa Lichtenstein said here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/necessity-materialism-t150127/index.html):


There is no way that science can show the world is material or that cause an effect always govern everything -- since these are philosophcial questions.

What experiment could you conduct that showed, for instance, that the world is physical? Or that there are such things as causes and effects?

Maybe they are right, but I just don't get it.

[red cat]

Well AugustWest replied to me here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-determinism-choice-t150175/index.html) with this:

I think August was talking about the complexities of the systems under observation. The principle of cause and effects is alright, but we might not always have the instruments to analyze all the causes correctly and work out the effects with suitable approximation; we might not even know what all the major causes are.



and this is what Rosa Lichtenstein said here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/necessity-materialism-t150127/index.html):
If I were you, I wouldn't trouble myself with Rosa's posts. She also rejects well-established mathematical theorems.

[Oswy]

I think August was talking about the complexities of the systems under observation. The principle of cause and effects is alright, but we might not always have the instruments to analyze all the causes correctly and work out the effects with suitable approximation; we might not even know what all the major causes are.

Well, I get this much; we may not be able to narrow down to quantum-level satisfaction what was involved in my foot kicking a football and the football consequently going off and landing somewhere. To that extent I agree that 'cause and effect' is not maybe as simple as we might want it to appear by way of explanation. Though August did reply with "there is no such thing as...".


If I were you, I wouldn't trouble myself with Rosa's posts. She also rejects well-established mathematical theorems.

Well, yeah, I have to admit that I struggle to understand what she is talking about. This is no doubt partly to do with my own lack of education in philosophy, not to mention Marxist philosophy, but I do get the impression that even despite this she is something of an eccentric?

[red cat]

Well, I get this much; we may not be able to narrow down to quantum-level satisfaction what was involved in my foot kicking a football and the football consequently going off and landing somewhere. To that extent I agree that 'cause and effect' is not maybe as simple as we might want it to appear by way of explanation. Though August did reply with "there is no such thing as...".

Yes, he said that in the beginning, but later his arguments seemed to revolve around two facts:

1) Possible ignorance and inability of the observer to interpret the causes and effects along with their relationships

2) The complexity of the real world. There might be many factors acting in a system that result in a certain outcome. Even if one of these factors is altered slightly, then the outcome might be drastically different.

The example of the football is a very elementary one. As the complexity of the system under observation increases, the error of approximating its states also increases.


Well, yeah, I have to admit that I struggle to understand what she is talking about. This is no doubt partly to do with my own lack of education in philosophy, not to mention Marxist philosophy, but I do get the impression that even despite this she is something of an eccentric?

Rosa rejects Cantor's diagonalization. Make of this what you will.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RC:


If I were you, I wouldn't trouble myself with Rosa's posts.

Wwell, you certainly can't debate successfully with me.


She also rejects well-established mathematical theorems.

And Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky and Riemann objected to Euclid's 'well-established' parallel postulate.

We can all imagine a 19th century version of Red Cat moaning about such lack or respect for tradition, too.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RC:


Rosa rejects Cantor's diagonalization. Make of this what you will.

So did Poincare and Brouwer - and the others I referenced whose work you are not mathematically advanced enough to understand!:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oswy:


and this is what Rosa Lichtenstein said here:


There is no way that science can show the world is material or that cause an effect always govern everything -- since these are philosophcial questions.

What experiment could you conduct that showed, for instance, that the world is physical? Or that there are such things as causes and effects?

Maybe they are right, but I just don't get it

I did not deny cause and effect, but denied that this is something scientists, even if they appeal to it and use it, can show governs everything.


but I do get the impression that even despite this she is something of an eccentric?

It's virtually impossible to be an innovator if you just follow fashion, like Red Cat here.

[¿Que?]

There is definitely a reason to be skeptical of "cause and effect" for the reasons AugustWest mentioned. A "cause" is essentially a human idea. If you kick a ball, when does the cause start, for example. Is it when your foot actually touches the ball, or when you start to move your leg, or when you think that you're about to kick the ball etc. It would be impossible to devise any mechanism from which to determine, specifically, when any cause happened, so it's not a matter how accurate measurement is, or anything like that. It's precisely a philosophical problem, but keep in mind that philosophical problems can have implication in the way people both "do science" as well as their everyday lives.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, the problem here is that all of our terms (except perhaps directly referential expressions) are just ideas, or as I prefer, just words.

That does not mean we are in error when we use causal talk. The point is that our causal vocabulary is far too varied and rich to be shoe-horned into a bare 'cause and effect' stright-jacket.