3 ms·
> If A leads to B, and B to C, isn't A ultimately the cause of C? Only if the mappings hold for every element, ie every A has to lead to B and every B has to l
by sabas123 8y ago
> If A leads to B, and B to C, isn't A ultimately the cause of C?
Only if the mappings hold for every element, ie every A has to lead to B and every B has to lead to C before you can conclude that A causes B
- jlawson 8y agoNot really, causation doesn't have to be 100%. Example: Getting shot causes holes in your lungs. Holes in your lungs cause you to die. Therefore, getting shot causes you to die. All the above, including the inference in the last sentence, are valid statements, even though they don't hold true in 100% of cases. Answer to grandparent's question is: Yes, if A->B->C, then A->C. Just make sure those casuative arrows actually exist before you make this deduction.
- giovannibonetti 8y agoI think that is a bad example because there are multiple ways to die from getting shot. So, even though there is not 100% chance that you die from holes in your lungs, there is a pretty high chance that you will die from any complication.
- ComputerGuru 8y agoNo, and your example is perfect. Getting shot can end up NOT leading to B (and then not leading to C). Get shot in the leg and live. No B means you can’t assume C.
- jlawson 8y agoYou're right. But in natural language, statements about causation don't have to be 100 percent guaranteed to be valid. Otherwise there's very little you could really say about the world. Consider: "smoking causes cancer." According to you, this would be false.
- Nomentatus 8y agoSee John Stuart Mill on causation. There's no such thing as singular causation.