Q&A: Help Analyzing Arguments About the Definition of a Cause
Help Analyzing Arguments About the Definition of a Cause
Question
Hi Michael,
I need to check something regarding the differences between two definitions of the word "cause". The definitions are:
A.
When I say that B is the reason for A,
I mean that if B wouldn't have happened,
and also everything else in the world would stay the same,
then A also wouldn't have happened.
B.
When I say that B is the reason for A,
I mean that B caused, or was somehow responsible,
for the creation of A's occurrence.">
I read somewhere that definition B basically gives a synonym for the word "cause" as the definition (I think it's cause and/or responsible), and that definition A is good because it defines it "by negation".
Do you agree with that? What do you think about these definitions?
Answer
Not correct. Definition A is very problematic, because it focuses on the logical component of causality and ignores the physical component. Without cold there is no rain; does that mean the cold is the cause of the rain? That is a correlation, not a cause. Definition A gives a sufficient condition for causality, not an exhaustive definition of it (if definition A is not satisfied, then indeed this is not causality. But if it is satisfied, that still does not mean it is causality. Maybe it is only correlation). I discussed this at length in my book The Science of Freedom, chapters 5–6.