We usually select the events immediately preceding the effect which we are trying to explain
This is to forsake possibly more important events that happened prior.
16 Matching Annotations
- Sep 2021
-
Local file Local fileUntitled16
-
-
The idea is that we do not generally require explanations when things behave normally
I really like this sentence. I think this makes sense. It is rather pointless to ask what caused the door to open after my hand tuned the knob and opened it. The question here, however, is what does 'behave normally' mean? It may be the case that a routine, normal thing to one person would be rather odd to another. I can see this occurring with people from different cultures.
-
A cause was thought of as something that brings about a disturbance in state of harmonious equilibrium in nature, and the effect as something that restores this equilibrium, much as a punishment restores the social harmony after a crime.
This reminds me of Piaget's theory of learning. A child is in equilibrium when there is a balance between assimilation and accommodation, meaning that no new change to any mental structures is needed. Disequilibrium occurs when knowledge cannot assimilated into existing structures. When this happens, accommodation is needed to return to equilibrium--that is, a cause (accommodation) is needed to have a certain effect that restore the state of equilibrium.
-
It may seem over-sophisticated to make a distinction between unexpected and abnormal events, but these words reflect a substantial difference. Firstly, abnormality refers to objective facts; things are normal or abnormal independently of our knowledge of them, while unexpectedness refers to a subjective state.
I was a little confused by the distinction here. How can we say that abnormality refers to objective facts? This may be a good topic of discussion.
-
subjective factors,
This seems to be related to the issue of research almost never being value-free. We all come to research with previous experiences and biases. We have biases in designing our experiments and in interpreting our results. Of course, as researchers we strive to be value-free in our research, but it is a almost a truism that research is almost never value-free. Perhaps a similar case can be made for causal selections almost always being subjective.
-
(Note, however, that a general causal statement can be true while a corresponding individual statement is not. Smith’s heart attack may not have killed him and he may have been killed by some- thing else. Cf. Hesslow, 1981b)
This is interesting to think about in the context of Covid. It is possible that some of the Covid deaths were not actually directly caused by covid, but because of the prevalence of the disease, it makes the causal explanation that more likely.
-
t is clear that many of these suggestions are highly similar and it is probable that other suggestions will turn out to be variations on the themes outlined above.
How do the suggestions relate and how do they differ? This may be a good topic of discussion.
-
Clearly, the strength of Fogel’s argument hinges on the estimated probability that, in the absence of railroads, canals would be developed and would be able to take care of the necessary transportation. The more probable this is, the less important will the existence of the railroads seem. Causal importance in this situation will be inversely related to probability of replacement.
Why were the canals not actually used then? To dismiss the importance of something just because there is a possibility that something else could have replaced it does not seem like a good argument to me.
-
He gives the example ofa car accident and the different explanations given by different people.
Finding causes is a big deal in this area and has big implications. My undergraduate advisor is a perception expert and has been called into crash sites as an expert witness to determine if what a person is saying was possible given perceptual constraints and to help determine causes.
-
hus we are faced with the situation that a normal event has many, perhaps infinitely many, causes, but that only some of them are selected and cited in causal explanations
What are the mechanisms behind making these selections? Perhaps it is related to blame in some cases? Perhaps it has to do with what is most easily identifiable?
-
the cell’s being depolarized,
^^ I guess I should have kept reading haha.
-
o one, for instance, would explain my action by mentioning the release of acetylcholine from the motor nerve endings. N
It seems that this brings into question why do we not make explanations using these terms? What makes a cause a cause and why do we select certain causes out of a seemingly infinite number of causes? I'm assuming this will be discussed more, but juts wanted to note this.
-
Most observers, when confronted with the list of selection criteria above, would probably find some truth in each of them.
This is how I feel. I was thinking of how each one makes sense.
-
“precipitating” c
meaning just before the phenomenon occurs.
-
In most writings
It won't let me annotate the section, but I started to get a little bit lost in the sauce when the author was talking about the ideas the theory rests on. Maybe we could discuss this.
-
he contraction of the appropriate muscles etc., all of which are necessary conditions for the final event’s taking place.
Of course, one can go even deeper into this event, such as all the way down to the biological or cellular level.
-