Hi, Shelley,
I'm not an epistomologist, philosopher of science, or
theory-of-knowledge guy, but I submit that once a correlation between two
phenomena is identified, the only thing we can demand in determining which
one is causal is that it precede the presumptive effect in time. Of
course, all of us want to know a *mechanism* of causation. Is it
witchcraft or bacteria that makes cream sour? We can choose between the
two by experimentation that explores possible mechanisms. However, just
because no mechanism linking a presumptive cause to an effect has been
identified, we cannot rule out the possibility that one exists based on
some unknown principle.
Another problem area arises when we consider statistical
aggregations vs. individual cases. Loosely speaking, statistics show that
smoking causes lung cancer (if we rule out the possibility that there is
some unidentified factor that makes some people both prone to develop
cancer AND prone to craving cigarettes), but some non-smokers also get lung
cancer. Thus, tobacco companies, when being sued by lung cancer victims or
their survivors, could always rightly say there was no proof that their
cigarettes had caused the case of cancer in question. In such cases, the
determination of causality is not based on absolute scientific rigor, but
on legal principles like "the preponderance of the evidence" or "what a
reasonable person would believe."
One can probably be completely safe by saying that smoking
increases the probability of developing lung cancer. At that point, are we
still talking about causation? Does witchcraft increase the probability of
cream going sour? Maybe you should check out those references people sent
you.
Martin M. Meiss
2012/10/9 Devan McGranahan <[email protected]>
> Hi Shelley, others,
>
> Slate recently had a great article on correlation and causation with a
> historical perspective.
>
> My favorite line: "'No, correlation does not imply causation, but it
> sure as hell provides a hint."
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/correlation_does_not_imply_causation_how_the_internet_fell_in_love_with_a_stats_class_clich_.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Having nothing better to do, I set fire to the prairie."
> -- Francis Chadron, 1839, Fort Clark, North Dakota
>
> http://www.devanmcgranahan.info
>
