Talk:Causality/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

edits to the lead

In this edit, I have clarified matters addressed in this and this edit.

Causality is an abstract concept, not adequately addressed by the ordinary language word 'way'. 'Efficacy' is a word of ordinary English.

In English studies of Aristotelian philosophy, the word 'cause' is used as a special technical term; such usage is not ordinary language.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the first point. Please consider...

• You are exaggerating a little concerning the "ordinary English". The whole sentence is quite complex enough even with boring old "way" in it. The change was: "the way in which one event, process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another event" -> "is efficacy by which one event, process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another event". The nett result is that we explain an abstract concept in terms which are less easy to understand than the ones we are explaining?
• I also don't see this term "efficacy" is adding anything even for people who do understand the term. Efficacy is the potential of something to be causal, or the ability of something to cause, right? So all definitions of that term, when inserted into this sentence, seem to make it rather meaningless. It effectively now means: "is the ability of something to produce an effect, by which an effect is produced", or perhaps "the potential that might exist, that one event causes another event".
• I am thinking causality is NOT an efficacy, which is what our lead currently demands. In other words, how is the addition of that "ability" or "potential" or "power" into the definition justified? Do we only use the term causality to refer to potential causes? I am thinking this is not correct. We also refer to causality in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"Efficacy is the potential of something to be causal, or the ability of something to cause, right?"

I don't accept that. In the word 'potential', it adds a further and redundant layer of abstraction, an extra layer that introduces the difficulties that you point out. Causality is so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your answer is not really clear to me, but I think you have not addressed the issues I raised. That efficacy implies only a certain potential for causation is simply coming from the normal English definition of the word "efficacy". What's more, efficacy is not really such an uncommon word, nor necessarily one which is used mainly by philosophers. It basically just means the same as "effectiveness". If you put effectiveness in the sentence then you'll see how many reasonably well-educated English speakers are going to read it. We should be aiming to help people understand the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We seem to agree that the word 'efficacy' is of the ordinary language.

I repeat, I don't accept your proposition 'that efficacy implies only a certain potential for causation is simply coming from the normal English definition of the word "efficacy".'

The use of the word 'cause' in philosophical studies of Aristotle's work is a distraction from the notion of causality that is the topic of the article, a distraction that the newcomer needs to be warned about. The philosophical usage of 'cause' in Aristotelian studies refers to 'why' questions, while causality as the topic of the article primarily refers to only one of Aristotle's "four causes".Chjoaygame (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think calling Aristotle a distraction is another topic. My concern is with the word choice "efficacy". I don't see how you can just tell me you disagree with me about what it means. It is a known word, in the English language. You have also not explained anything about what this word adds which a less ambiguous word like "way" could have explained more easily? (Unless I missed something, which is always possible.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Efficacy is actually performative, not merely potentially so. The word 'way' fails to focus on the abstract character of causality. It is appropriate to point out that the Aristotelian philosophical topic of 'cause' is distinct from causality, the topic of the article, because the two are very commonly confused.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You know Efficacy and Effectiveness are in normal dictionaries? Please have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to concede that you have a point there. Perhaps it would go too far into risk of copyright breach for me to quote the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in detail. I have to protest that I do not like your usage of the words "normal dictionaries"; I prefer 'dictionaries of ordinary language'. Philosophical technical terms are normal but not necessarily of the ordinary language.

My concern is that causality effects processes. The Oxford English Dictionary is confused: it says that efficacy is a power to effect an object intended, but then it says that the word is not used as an attribute of personal agents; the contradiction is that only personal agents can intend.

In my defence I observe that, as an obsolete meaning for 'efficacy', the OED lists "effect" or "actual event". It is this latter that I think needs to be emphasised in our article. Causality is about actuality and activity. Again, these are abstract words.

To express the idea better, I have now posted the word 'action', in accord with the definition of 'causation' that is currently cited in the article, attributed to the OED. For a definition of 'causality', looking at the OED, I find the ones that I think best fit our present article are "fact or state of being or acting as a cause", and "operation of causal energy". These are about, not potentiality, but actualization, which I think is the meaning we need here. Besides being translated as 'energy', Aristotle's word ἐνέργεια is often translated as 'action' or 'operation', as well as 'actualization'.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It is better, but I still think worse than what I proposed, and technically still not quite right. We are now implying that "Causality" is actually a word used to refer to a specific cases of actions. I think that is wrong? Causality is, like you say, difficult to define, but as per Hume for example the clear we can say is that it involves two events, one after the other. It is the word we use to describe the connection between them. Any word which we use to describe what type of connection that is will effectively just be moving the problem and finding another word for causality. So it easier, and more typical in philosophical works, to use a plain word (like connection or way) and let the reader understand that the nature of that connection is itself the topic called causality? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You make a good case.

There are several elements in this. One is your objection to the word 'efficacy' as ambiguous, and to 'action' as too concrete. Another is what to put instead into the article.

In this forum, I can't easily go against the authority of the OED's definition of 'efficacy', with what I regard as its redundant layer of abstraction, in the words 'power or capacity', though I prefer its versions that it calls "obsolete", that make it nearly synonymous with 'action'.

Looking at the OED for 'causality', I find, amongst other things, "efficiency, or agency; fact or state of being or acting as a cause". One of the usages that it cites reads "influence and causality in the production of the other"; I like this. Another cited usage reads 'power' as nearly synonymous with 'causality'. Another reads 'independent activity' as nearly synonymous with 'causality'. Another meaning given by the OED is "The operation or relation of cause and effect". This has it both ways: as something real and substantial, as if it were the glue that holds the natural universe together, and generates or creates the progress that we observe, and describe in terms of 'time'; and as a merely logical connection.

I would like to think it over. In the meantime, influenced by the OED, I have tried 'influence'.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do. I think "The operation or relation of cause and effect" is a bit like my proposal of "way" in that it is being deliberately vague about the "connection". I did not look up what word Hume used, but I think it might have been connection (connexion). The point is that we do not have much we can say about this connection, just that we believe there is one, and that cause comes first, effect second.

Maybe it is worth remarking that Aristotelians and similar believers in a teleological nature would not agree with your description of their concept of causality. They would say, I think, that they are talking about exactly the same topic. The difference is that they think they CAN say something more about that connection, because nature in a sense wants things to happen a certain way. The closest we moderns can come to their thinking is to consider that in a way we believe that "the laws of nature" are ALSO a cause, but a different type of cause than for example a billiard ball crashing into another.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Some fragmentary thoughts.

The present article is about causality, not primarily about Aristotle or Hume.

Aristotle could not have compared his idea of αἰτία with our ideas about it. He did not know that causal influence has an apparently universal definite maximum speed of propagation. He did not know that causal influence cannot propagate faster than light. He did not know that gravitational influence seems to propagate at light speed. The reason for commenting, in the lead, on Aristotle's thinking, is not to discuss his ideas, but, rather, is to distinguish our ideas from his. Also Hume's thinking changed later in his life. And he did not know those things about causal influence. Today, the deepest nature of what we call the 'photon' is not understood. We still do not have a good understanding of the deepest nature of light, but we take it seriously. The word 'substantial' comes to mind, but I would not use it explicitly right now.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Aristotle and Hume would normally be considered among the most important topics in causality? Your comments about the speed of light are interesting but I don't think we can limit the article to that discussion. This is just an encyclopedia which sets-out to explain what is published on topics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are leading with your question "Aristotle and Hume would normally be considered among the most important topics in causality?"

Causality has been considered by more recent philosophers than Aristotle and Hume, for example by Alfred North Whitehead. Though natural science is often not the home domain of the ordinary reader of the Wikipedia, some ordinary people are interested in natural science. Causality is the prime abstraction of natural science.

Examining the present article, one sees that it is about a range of causal questions, not primarily about Aristotle and Hume. Aristotelian philosophy has a run in the lead, but Hume is not mentioned there. I have tried to remedy the latter omission.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Reason for removing 'explain' tag

This edit inserts an 'explain' tag. The tag talks of "further explanation" being needed.

The tag is inappropriate. Its cover note reads "Added explanation tag to a sentence with unexplained terms without wikilinks."

The so-called "unexplained terms" are ordinary language, and do not call for wikilinking. An ordinary English dictionary will provide adequate explanation of the words of the indicated sentence. The rest of the paragraph is an explanation in more detail, that supplies what the tag demands.

I am therefore removing the tag.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

New editor, not understanding how to edit, needs to learn

This edit shows that Editor W727 is not familiar with how Wikipedia editing works. If he wants to edit, he needs to learn how it is done.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

reasons for undo of good faith edit

I have undone this good faith edit for the following reasons.

Causality is a concept radically different from logical implication. It is a big mistake to conflate them.

Largely speaking, the article is about what in Aristotelian philosophy is usually called 'efficient causation'. This is a concept so basic to our thinking that it is hard to explain in other terms. Largely because of this, it was roundly criticised by Hume. It refers to what we might perhaps call 'the ordinary everyday world of concretely real things'. In contrast, logical implication is about propositions, which may be about abstractions or imaginings.

The wording "one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect)", though perhaps laboured, is deliberately intended to emphasise the equal logical status of cause and effect. In the ordinary world, it is impossible for an entity to have just one cause or just one effect.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

reason for undo of good faith edit

I have undone this edit, for the following reason.

The first sentence of the lead is primarily a definition of the topic. It is not part of the definition of causality that inductive reasoning is involved.

The contribution of inductive reasoning to the topic of causality is a matter for specific discourse, particularly in the body of the article.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Causality

If you want to change the name of this page, I suggest opening a full page move discussion as per WP:RM#CM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Section on Theology fails to comply with Wikipedia standards

Without prejudice as to questions of causality in theology, the present section in this Wikipedia article fails to comply with Wikipedia standards.

The section is loaded with synthesis. The article's cited reference is about Christian theology; it is WP:SYN to use it to refer to Abrahamic theology. The term "determinism" refers to human will, not to God's will; it is again WP:SYN to conflate the two. The Old Testament refers to the beginning of the world, not to the beginning of time; WP:SYN again. The word "therefore" indicates the presence of synthesis here.

Besides that, Wikipedia does not use the form "Note that ..."

Both the logic and the sole cited source of the section are inadequate.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your broad points, setting aside quibbles over things like "beginning of the world" vs "beginning of time". I think it's no problem for there to be a section on theology, but it needs better sources, shouldn't biased toward Abrahamic theology, and should also take into account overlaps with the discipline of philosophy. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The busy bot removes this but leaves untouched posts from 2005.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how this bot works or is controlled. Is there a person controlling it, or is it autonomous and automatic? Please don't remove this section at this time. It needs to stay till the problem is tackled. It is incongruous that the bot removes the currently needed notice but leaves in place unused posts from 2005.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, I still don't know how this busy and enthusiastic bot works or is controlled. Is there a person controlling it, or is it autonomous and automatic? If you are a person controlling the bot, please don't remove this section at this time. It needs to stay till the problem is tackled.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems this bot is autonomous, not supervised by a person. This talk page complaint needs to stay up till someone does something about thee prroblem.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Intro and time

In the introductory section, when talking about causes, it states "and all lie in its past", but that is far from being a philosophical consensus: some philosophers (like W. L. Craig) have argued that a cause can be at the same time as its effect (instantaneous causation), like when a heavy ball is over a cushion and, thanks to gravity, it compresses the cushion down. So I'd suggest removing that comment about past vs future or, at least, complementing that causes may be simultaneous with its effects.

Momergil (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)