- The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation. One the other, arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause are examples of fallacious post hoc reasoning.
- Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original "cause" and and its purported "effect. ( Introduction to causal agreements ).
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Mission : Critical ( Causation)
This website was the same exact website that I used to answer the previous week's blog post. This website really helped me understand the clear definition and meaning behind causation. The example was really simple for me to analyze and incorporate. The website had a couple of general rules that really help me, like
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Soccer Freak,
ReplyDeleteI agree that this article provided a lot of valid information. I too, had referenced this article at a previous time in order to fully clarify a concept we were going over in class. Causation was clearly defined on the website, and you clearly stated the rules that applied to causation. "The cause must precede the event in time" is always an important rule to live by as is "Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove a causation." These general rules are often overlooked. The exercises also helped me a lot! Sometimes I find that is is not enough to simply read over the concepts outlined in the text and on websites; doing actual exercises helps to fully solidify the concepts.