Q&A: Controlled Experiment — A Solution to the Problem of Causality?
Controlled Experiment — A Solution to the Problem of Causality?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Hume's challenge to the principle of causality is well known: that the causal relation cannot be observed by the senses, and at most one can see consistent temporal precedence.
As I understand it, Hume does agree that the principle of causality exists, so that every occurrence has a cause that brought it about; rather, his challenge is to a specific claim that X is a cause of Y. Such a claim is not empirical, and therefore Hume does not accept it.
Assuming that, does a controlled experiment, in which variables are isolated and disturbances removed, and which shows again and again that phenomenon X, and it alone, appears before phenomenon Y, not necessarily prove that X is the cause of Y?
After all, there must be a cause for Y (according to the above assumption), and if we see that only X appears before it, then it must be that X is the cause of Y. Doesn't this make causality empirical in a certain sense? And if not, why not?
(Of course, this does not solve the challenge regarding induction.)
Thank you,
Nathan
Nathan
Answer
I don't think you're right. Hume does not accept the causal relation as such, because it has no experiential source.
Discussion on Answer
Not only is there no proof for causality in nature. There is not even any evidence for continuity and identity, though they are more basic concepts. Everything is created in the mind.
The computer screen gives the illusion that there is continuity. In practice there is no continuity at all. And the cause of the image and text you see now is not the image you saw in the previous frame. Rather, everything is calculated מחדש each time.
We create in the nature of our mind a causal connection of continuity. In reality there is no such causality. Rather, everything is calculated anew each time from the representation the computer has, which in the end is translated into pixels displayed on a screen that we interpret as text.
And the solution is that all these concepts are theoretical concepts, not empirical ones. And the scientific theoretical concept of causality does not line up with the mental-sensory concept of causality. And that creates confusion.
You can see this confusion in the context of coronavirus. Most people believe that keeping or not keeping the guidelines is the cause of morbidity, when in reality it is the invisible coronavirus virus.
It seems a bit hard to say that. What's the alternative? That things happen without a cause and randomly?
It seems more reasonable that the challenge is about specific determinations. But I haven't read his words directly, and really it's not all that important what he actually said. Thanks