[FRIAM] FRIAM and causality

[Robert Holmes]

On Nov 16, 2007 5:32 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> <snip>  So, in my idiotic postivisitic mode, I assert,   that pattern IS
> what causality is.  I mean why would one bother to attribute it anywhere
> else than where we know it.
>
> No it's not Nick, as witnessed by the following story: I was walking
through Santa Fe, when who should I meet but Nick, loudly ringing a brass
handbell. "Nick, why are you ringing that bell?" "I always do this when I
walk through Santa Fe, Robert. It scares the crocodiles off and stops them
attacking me." "But there aren't any crocodiles in Santa Fe". "Looks like
it's working then"

Pattern is a necessary condition for causality but it is not sufficient. You
also need *relevance*. This is exactly the same challenge that Hempel's
"covering law" model of scientific explanation faces (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological)

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071117/18954d56/attachment.html