I had a tough time coming with a proper explanation for causal reasoning. I was able to understand the the purpose of such a reasoning. I searched for variousexplanations for the reasoning and found a really interesting one. "
These causal arguments, then, follow the form of an inductive argument with one important exception: whereas an inductive argument carries as part of its second premise the implication that there is otherwise no significant difference, these causal arguments carry the implication that there is only one significant difference" (Introduction to Causal Arguments). I could easily relate this with the example I gave in my previous post :
My example :
A car is traveling at speed limit, and suddenly swerves and hits another car trying to avoid a kid who was threatened to run across the road. The people in car can argue that, the kid who ran across them caused them to change directions unexpectedly. The kid can argue that, his friends threatened him which caused him to do that action.
Hence, for every single action there is only one and only one cause for that action. For the kid, he was threatened; for the car, it was the kid. That particular definition really helped me understand this concept clearly.
Hey soccer freak, I like the topic you chose because it was one of the ones that confused me the most. I know it incorporates the idea of a cause and effect but didn’t fully understand how that fit into the reasoning, but your example helped me understand it a little better. Your example showed a situation where two different people had different “causes” that led into the same effect of the given situation. Then you showed the reasoning behind it which really helped me grasp the actual concept of causal reasoning. Great post man keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete