Causation in Terms of causae causantes

The chapter analyses singular causation within an indeterministic context. It assumes that effects are transitions and causes are basic indeterministic transitions, called causae causantes. It considers a variety of transitions as effects, depending on what their outcomes are (outcome chains, scattered outcomes, or disjunctive outcomes). By this analysis, a causa causans for a given transition occurs at a risky junction, where alternative basic transitions could prohibit the occurrence of the given transition. The causa causans keeps the occurrence of this transition possible. As an argument for the adequacy of this analysis, the chapter offers a few theorems showing that causae causantes satisfy inus-like conditions as proposed by Mackie.

The interplay between covariation, temporal, and mechanism information in singular causation judgments

Most psychological studies on causal cognition have focused on how people make predictions from causes to effects or how they assess causal strength for general causal relationships (e.g., “smoking causes cancer”). In the past years, there has been a surge of interest in other types of causal judgments, such as diagnostic inferences or causal selection. Our focus here is on how people assess singular causation relations between cause and effect events that occurred at a particular spatiotemporal location (e.g., “Mary’s having taking this pill caused her sickness.”). The analysis of singular causation has received much attention in philosophy, but relatively few psychological studies have investigated how lay people assess these relations. Based on the power PC model of causal attribution proposed by Cheng and Novick (2005), we have developed and tested a new computational model of singular causation judgments integrating covariation, temporal, and mechanism information. We provide an overview of this research and outline important questions for future research.

HUME AND THE ‘SECRET CONNEXION’: WHY CAUSATION IS A SINGULAR AFFAIR

ABSTRACTThe great Scottish Enlightenment man of letters David Hume (1711–76) offered an account of causation in terms of regularities: repeated pairings of certain kinds of events. Anything more than this, a supposed ‘secret connexion’ binding individual causes and effects, is not something we could ever experience. This, at least, is the view traditionally ascribed to him. Here the account, and its empiricist motivation, is outlined, and a fundamental problem identified: his account of causation is in tension with his account of the way in which we acquire the concept of a distinctive connection between causes and effects. To explain both our experience of causation, and causation's intimate connection with time, we need to appeal to singular causation: the connection between individual events which Hume found so elusive.

Causation

Two opposed viewpoints raise complementary problems about causation. The first is from Hume: watch the child kick the ball. You see the foot touch the ball and the ball move off. But do you see the foot cause the ball to move? And if you do not see it, how do you know that that is what happened? Indeed if all our experience is like this, and all of our ideas come from experience, where could we get the idea of causation in the first place? The second is from Kant. We can have no ideas at all with which to experience nature – we cannot experience the child as a child nor the motion as a motion – unless we have organized the experience into a causal order in which one thing necessarily gives rise to another. The problem for the Kantian viewpoint is to explain how, in advance of experiencing nature in various specific ways, we are able to provide such a complex organization for our experience. For the Kantian the objectivity of causality is a presupposition of our experience of events external to ourselves. The Humean viewpoint must find something in our experience that provides sufficient ground for causal claims. Regular associations between putative causes and effects are the proposed solution. This attention to regular associations connects the Humean tradition with modern statistical techniques used in the social sciences to establish causal laws. Modern discussions focus on three levels of causal discourse. The first is about singular causation: about individual ‘causings’ that occur at specific times and places, for example, ‘the cat lapped up the milk’. The second is about causal laws: laws about what features reliably cause or prevent other features, as in, ‘rising inflation prevents unemployment’. The third is about causal powers. These are supposed to determine what kinds of singular causings a feature can produce or what kinds of causal laws can be true of it – ‘aspirins have the power to relieve headaches’ for example. Contemporary anglophone work on causality has centred on two questions. First, ‘what are the relations among these levels?’ The second is from reductive empiricisms of various kinds that try to bar causality from the world, or at least from any aspects of the world that we can find intelligible: ‘what is the relation between causality (on any one of the levels) and those features of the world that are supposed to be less problematic?’ These latter are taken by different authors to include different things. Sensible or measurable properties like ‘redness’ or ‘electric voltage’ have been attributed a legitimacy not available to causal relations like ‘lapping-up’ or ‘pushing over’: sometimes it is ‘the basic properties studied by physics’. So-called ‘occurrent’ properties have also been privileged over dispositional properties (like water-solubility) and powers. At the middle level where laws of nature are concerned, laws about regular associations between admissible features – whether these associations are deterministic or probabilistic – have been taken as superior to laws about what kinds of effects given features produce.