Causes -- and distinctions between them

[fast]

If I take a fragile drinking glass and forcefully throw it on the surface of a hard floor, then it wouldn't surprise me to learn that others would think I'm the cause of the subsequent broken glass. Had the glass not been fragile, and had the floor not been hard, then it's still the case I caused the glass to brake, as I threw it with sufficient force to break it given the conditions. I take full responsibility for being the cause behind why the glass broke. I admit, I caused it to break. We'll call that "cause of the first kind."

If a government entity or private organization changes a policy, we might find that things no longer happen as they might have before. There seems to be a tendency by many to attribute the change in policy as the cause for the real world change that subsequently occurs. For instance, (and I'm probably going to regret my impromptu attempt to give an example), an increase in the allowable speed limit in a given area might find future records of accidents conveying to us an increase in accidents and fatalities along that area. One might be inclined to blame the policy as being the cause. Okay, but if that's a cause, then it's certainly a cause of a different kind (and not a cause of the first kind).

The glass that broke wouldn't have broke had it been strong enough to withstand the force of my throw, but I'm still to blame regardless, for I threw the glass and the glass had no alternative but to react as it only could. The policy gave permission to drive faster along the roadway (and please, don't let this example rule over the point trying to be made), but the people could have continued to drive as they always have. This is very much unlike the glass. Yes, the people might have been led to think it was safe whereas it might not have been safe, but saying the change in policy caused the increase in traffic incidents cannot be the same kind of cause. It's a cause of a different kind, and I'll dub it a cause of the second kind.

I'm hesitant to regard it as an indirect cause, mainly because of the ambiguity potential. For instance, it could be a direct cause in the sense of it having a direct correlation yet an indirect cause as the change in policy itself has no immediate physical effect like the glass example. Other people have to respond (and through the choice not to respond, unlike the glass) before there are later physical accidents.

Any thoughts?

 

[Treedbear]

If I take a fragile drinking glass and forcefully throw it on the surface of a hard floor, then it wouldn't surprise me to learn that others would think I'm the cause of the subsequent broken glass. ...
Any thoughts?

It seems to me the logical way to define a cause is the event after which the probability of something not occurring (or occurring, depending on the example) was practically zero. That becomes the beginning of the event. More generally it's the event for which the probability changes dramatically, not necessarily to zero. Such as when the probability changes from 10 billion to one to 1000 to 1, for example, for or against something happening.

 

[fromderinside]

Wasn't there something about exploding water near the point of bp in very smooth vessels? Was cause heat or the vessel?

I'm more interested in with whither of proximal cause in the first place. Subjectively folk philosophical answers seem good enough and there are reams of them, ergo subjective? Objectively, well .....

 

[Kharakov]

"Why did you throw the glass?" he asked, like William Shatner's Kirk.

 

[untermensche]

"Why did you throw the glass?" he asked, like William Shatner's Kirk.

Do you think it is possible to answer that?

 

[fromderinside]

You here. I threw the glass because I was angry about untermenche always claiming flubber exists.

 

[untermensche]

You here. I threw the glass because I was angry about untermenche always claiming flubber exists.

You are angry because you can't just live in the cozy comfort of the stories you want to believe. You have created a nice little faith and want to rest in it as if you understand something about the workings of millions of cells in a useful manner.

Like the Christian you have to constantly deal with people who don't believe your little stories.

The problem is the believing without rational cause. Not the person who points this out.

 

[fast]

It seems to me the logical way to define a cause is [...]

I have embarked on this lil' journey, but not so much to figure out the nature of cause or to define the term, yet as far as starting points go, that's unlikely a bad idea; instead, as I detour in variance to an otherwise common path, it is precisely without a fully collective list of differences that I begin.

<acknowledgement that there are different kinds of cause would be a sweet beginning.>

the event after which the probability of something not occurring (or occurring, depending on the example) was practically zero.

If in an effort to save money, I reduce spending on security designed to prevent theft, and if theft increases, I am the cause? Well, that may be so, but the potential for a subtle false equivalency is extremely high when the very same word is used in comparison to substantially divergent causes.

<and being able to line those up would be a wonderful treat>

 

[fast]

"Why did you throw the glass?" he asked, like William Shatner's Kirk.

To prove that I was fully to blame and no other did or could have a hand in it.

 

[Juma]

If I take a fragile drinking glass and forcefully throw it on the surface of a hard floor, then it wouldn't surprise me to learn that others would think I'm the cause of the subsequent broken glass. Had the glass not been fragile, and had the floor not been hard, then it's still the case I caused the glass to brake, as I threw it with sufficient force to break it given the conditions. I take full responsibility for being the cause behind why the glass broke. I admit, I caused it to break. We'll call that "cause of the first kind."

If a government entity or private organization changes a policy, we might find that things no longer happen as they might have before. There seems to be a tendency by many to attribute the change in policy as the cause for the real world change that subsequently occurs. For instance, (and I'm probably going to regret my impromptu attempt to give an example), an increase in the allowable speed limit in a given area might find future records of accidents conveying to us an increase in accidents and fatalities along that area. One might be inclined to blame the policy as being the cause. Okay, but if that's a cause, then it's certainly a cause of a different kind (and not a cause of the first kind).

The glass that broke wouldn't have broke had it been strong enough to withstand the force of my throw, but I'm still to blame regardless, for I threw the glass and the glass had no alternative but to react as it only could. The policy gave permission to drive faster along the roadway (and please, don't let this example rule over the point trying to be made), but the people could have continued to drive as they always have. This is very much unlike the glass. Yes, the people might have been led to think it was safe whereas it might not have been safe, but saying the change in policy caused the increase in traffic incidents cannot be the same kind of cause. It's a cause of a different kind, and I'll dub it a cause of the second kind.

I'm hesitant to regard it as an indirect cause, mainly because of the ambiguity potential. For instance, it could be a direct cause in the sense of it having a direct correlation yet an indirect cause as the change in policy itself has no immediate physical effect like the glass example. Other people have to respond (and through the choice not to respond, unlike the glass) before there are later physical accidents.

Any thoughts?

The floor being there is also the cause shattering the glass.
"Causes" are only the modeling of the event. It is not something real.

 

[fast]

If I take a fragile drinking glass and forcefully throw it on the surface of a hard floor, then it wouldn't surprise me to learn that others would think I'm the cause of the subsequent broken glass. Had the glass not been fragile, and had the floor not been hard, then it's still the case I caused the glass to brake, as I threw it with sufficient force to break it given the conditions. I take full responsibility for being the cause behind why the glass broke. I admit, I caused it to break. We'll call that "cause of the first kind."

If a government entity or private organization changes a policy, we might find that things no longer happen as they might have before. There seems to be a tendency by many to attribute the change in policy as the cause for the real world change that subsequently occurs. For instance, (and I'm probably going to regret my impromptu attempt to give an example), an increase in the allowable speed limit in a given area might find future records of accidents conveying to us an increase in accidents and fatalities along that area. One might be inclined to blame the policy as being the cause. Okay, but if that's a cause, then it's certainly a cause of a different kind (and not a cause of the first kind).

The glass that broke wouldn't have broke had it been strong enough to withstand the force of my throw, but I'm still to blame regardless, for I threw the glass and the glass had no alternative but to react as it only could. The policy gave permission to drive faster along the roadway (and please, don't let this example rule over the point trying to be made), but the people could have continued to drive as they always have. This is very much unlike the glass. Yes, the people might have been led to think it was safe whereas it might not have been safe, but saying the change in policy caused the increase in traffic incidents cannot be the same kind of cause. It's a cause of a different kind, and I'll dub it a cause of the second kind.

I'm hesitant to regard it as an indirect cause, mainly because of the ambiguity potential. For instance, it could be a direct cause in the sense of it having a direct correlation yet an indirect cause as the change in policy itself has no immediate physical effect like the glass example. Other people have to respond (and through the choice not to respond, unlike the glass) before there are later physical accidents.

Any thoughts?

The floor being there is also the cause shattering the glass.
"Causes" are only the modeling of the event. It is not something real.

Cause: The reason or explanation for why or how an event or occurrence takes place

That just came to me; I figure answers are plentiful; broad and general or narrow and specific perspectives abound, I guess. But, not real? Sounds a bit off. Certainly not imaginary.

 

[Juma]

The floor being there is also the cause shattering the glass.
"Causes" are only the modeling of the event. It is not something real.

Cause: The reason or explanation for why or how an event or occurrence takes place

That just came to me; I figure answers are plentiful; broad and general or narrow and specific perspectives abound, I guess. But, not real? Sounds a bit off. Certainly not imaginary.

What i mean is that there is no specific feature in reality that is "the cause".
It is a label you attach to som feature of your model of the event to create a narration of it, which you need too make sense of it as "something that happened". But in reality everything interacts and are "equally" important.

 

[fast]

Cause: The reason or explanation for why or how an event or occurrence takes place

That just came to me; I figure answers are plentiful; broad and general or narrow and specific perspectives abound, I guess. But, not real? Sounds a bit off. Certainly not imaginary.

What i mean is that there is no specific feature in reality that is "the cause".
It is a label you attach to som feature of your model of the event to create a narration of it, which you need too make sense of it as "something that happened". But in reality everything interacts and are "equally" important.

Okay, but there are still causes, and not all causes are identical, so there are differences.

If a pursuing white officer shoots an evading black criminal in the back, it might not have happened had he not ran, but if there is some sense in which the black guy was partially 'the cause', it would be a sense that doesn't equate to being blame worthy (well, at least by some), and if the white officer would have acted appropriately, it's also the case things might not have happened as they did, yet it's still the case the white officer is at least partially to blame (if not fully), so maybe (just maybe) there is a divide between certain kinds of cause that signify blameworthiness whereas other kinds do not.

In a policy changing example, I can somehow be blamed for consequences even though there is no immediate control over the actions of others. That seems to be a sense in which I am a cause that is starkly different than other scenarios whereby there is no blame to lay on others. If I routinely leave my keys in my car, I am not to blame for the actions of criminals that steal. They can resist the temptation, yet if they don't, ...

 

[untermensche]

How do you call something an "effect" unless it had a cause?

How do you call something a "cause" unless it has an effect?

 

[Treedbear]

I have embarked on this lil' journey, but not so much to figure out the nature of cause or to define the term, yet as far as starting points go, that's unlikely a bad idea; instead, as I detour in variance to an otherwise common path, it is precisely without a fully collective list of differences that I begin.

<acknowledgement that there are different kinds of cause would be a sweet beginning.>

the event after which the probability of something not occurring (or occurring, depending on the example) was practically zero.

If in an effort to save money, I reduce spending on security designed to prevent theft, and if theft increases, I am the cause? Well, that may be so, but the potential for a subtle false equivalency is extremely high when the very same word is used in comparison to substantially divergent causes.

<and being able to line those up would be a wonderful treat>

Why do I get the feeling I just entered a rabbit hole?

 

[Juma]

What i mean is that there is no specific feature in reality that is "the cause".
It is a label you attach to som feature of your model of the event to create a narration of it, which you need too make sense of it as "something that happened". But in reality everything interacts and are "equally" important.

Okay, but there are still causes, and not all causes are identical, so there are differences.

If a pursuing white officer shoots an evading black criminal in the back, it might not have happened had he not ran, but if there is some sense in which the black guy was partially 'the cause', it would be a sense that doesn't equate to being blame worthy (well, at least by some), and if the white officer would have acted appropriately, it's also the case things might not have happened as they did, yet it's still the case the white officer is at least partially to blame (if not fully), so maybe (just maybe) there is a divide between certain kinds of cause that signify blameworthiness whereas other kinds do not.

In a policy changing example, I can somehow be blamed for consequences even though there is no immediate control over the actions of others. That seems to be a sense in which I am a cause that is starkly different than other scenarios whereby there is no blame to lay on others. If I routinely leave my keys in my car, I am not to blame for the actions of criminals that steal. They can resist the temptation, yet if they don't, ...

This doesnt seem to about causes but about who we can blame.

 

[fromderinside]

Even if one models a process, where it is measured has a proximal antecedent and subsequent state or condition or measure. Ergo cause is prior to measure and effect is post measure. However close one gets, even infinitely close in time space or any other dimension one chooses to invoke, to the measurement there are antecedents and subsequent conditions. Oh, one can substitute observation for measure.

 

[fromderinside]

You here. I threw the glass because I was angry about untermenche always claiming flubber exists.

You are angry because you can't just live in the cozy comfort of the stories you want to believe. You have created a nice little faith and want to rest in it as if you understand something about the workings of millions of cells in a useful manner.

Like the Christian you have to constantly deal with people who don't believe your little stories.

The problem is the believing without rational cause. Not the person who points this out.

Perspective. Several meanings of that term came to mind when I read your response. Nuff sed.

 

[fast]

How do you call something a "cause" unless it has an effect?

How do we indeed! If I do X and Y happens, is it a cause or perhaps something else that we just call a cause? If the latter, then I should think we need to be clear not to confuse such 'causes' with actual causes.

If I were feeding you and stopped, am I now the cause of you going hungry? It's amazing what we're sometimes said to have caused. There are people who equate "not helping" with "hurting." It's interesting how skewed views of the world percolate amongst us.

 

[fast]

I have embarked on this lil' journey, but not so much to figure out the nature of cause or to define the term, yet as far as starting points go, that's unlikely a bad idea; instead, as I detour in variance to an otherwise common path, it is precisely without a fully collective list of differences that I begin.

<acknowledgement that there are different kinds of cause would be a sweet beginning.>



If in an effort to save money, I reduce spending on security designed to prevent theft, and if theft increases, I am the cause? Well, that may be so, but the potential for a subtle false equivalency is extremely high when the very same word is used in comparison to substantially divergent causes.

<and being able to line those up would be a wonderful treat>

Why do I get the feeling I just entered a rabbit hole?

You didn't see the sign?