4 ms·

I am not sure how to define "cause" without introducing counterfactuals. "This happened because I did that" seems to imply "Had I not done that, this would not

I am not sure how to define "cause" without introducing counterfactuals. "This happened because I did that" seems to imply "Had I not done that, this would not have happened" -- a counterfactual.

entropicdrifter 7y ago
I'm not sure that's always the case. Couldn't you have a scenario where your action was the direct cause of an outcome that might have come about some other way without your involvement at all? For instance, if a ball rolls down a hill because you pushed it, but a breeze blows a moment after you pushed the ball, if that breeze was strong enough to push the ball down the hill too, then you have a scenario where "that ball went down the hill because I pushed it" is true, but "had I not pushed the ball, it would not have rolled down this hill" is not true.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Yes, what you're describing is basically an "or" gate. The counterfactual is "what if neither cause happened?"
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    right, but the potential existence of multiple potential causes (an "or" gate) is what makes this reasoning a fallacy: > "This happened because I did that" seems to imply "Had I not done that, this would not have happened" -- a counterfactual. The point is that constructing the counterfactual requires a more than just knowledge of a single causal link, but a broader set of causal knowledge about many causal links. Language is messy and ambiguous and we do often colloquially use "X caused Y" to imply the truth of the counter factual "If X had not happened Y would not have happened". Interestingly, a different tense such as "X causes Y" generally does not have the same counter factual implication.
- hyperpape 7y ago
  You're 100% correct. The point isn't just about causality. As an undergraduate, one of my philosophy professors (Bill Lycan) told a class "never attempt to define anything in terms of counterfactuals. No matter what it is, there will be decisive counterexamples." To be super-clear, this is not a statement about Pearl, and it's not denying that counterfactuals are interesting, just a claim that you can't define much of anything in terms of them. P.S. He actually said "analyze", but the way philosophers use that term, it's appropriate to make the substitution to avoid confusion.
- ssivark 7y ago
  That seems like an unintentional straw man. The actual counterfactual is: "had I not pushed the ball, it would not have rolled down this hill [at the moment it did]". That says nothing about whether some other cause could not push the ball over at a later instant. Equivalently (if you don't like separating out the causes in time), if formulated as an OR operation on a bunch of causes, the counter factual would be: "Had I not pushed the ball, either the ball would not have rolled down the hill, or there would have been another cause for pushing it down the hill."
epistasis 7y ago
Maybe this is a problem with terminology then; because these definitions are clearly distinct and have entirely separate methods when you formalize them in math. Perhaps we should call Pearl's Rung 3 counterfactuals "subjunctive" or something entirely else to distinguish the concepts and methods of Rung 2 and Rung 3. But these rungs are extremely different in formulations and models, and are clearly distinct. If you want to call rung 2 "simple counterfactuals," well I'm not super into that sort of debate as long as we all agree to the meaning of the terms. And if philosophy finds the distinction between Pearl's Rung 2 and Rung 3 difficult to accept, then it may also mean that philosophy has not yet discovered what Pearl has formulated.
longtom 7y ago
No, these two statements are not equivalent. Perhaps what you have in mind is the contrapositive "This didn't happen, so I didn't do it". More formally, A -> B is equivalent to -B -> -A, but it is not equivalent to -A -> -B.

I am not sure how to define "cause" without introducing counterfactuals. "This happened because I did that" seems to imply "Had I not done that, this would not have happened" -- a counterfactual.

entropicdrifter 7y ago

I'm not sure that's always the case. Couldn't you have a scenario where your action was the direct cause of an outcome that might have come about some other way without your involvement at all? For instance, if a ball rolls down a hill because you pushed it, but a breeze blows a moment after you pushed the ball, if that breeze was strong enough to push the ball down the hill too, then you have a scenario where "that ball went down the hill because I pushed it" is true, but "had I not pushed the ball, it would not have rolled down this hill" is not true.

skybrian 7y ago
Yes, what you're describing is basically an "or" gate. The counterfactual is "what if neither cause happened?"
- shkkmo 7y ago
  right, but the potential existence of multiple potential causes (an "or" gate) is what makes this reasoning a fallacy: > "This happened because I did that" seems to imply "Had I not done that, this would not have happened" -- a counterfactual. The point is that constructing the counterfactual requires a more than just knowledge of a single causal link, but a broader set of causal knowledge about many causal links. Language is messy and ambiguous and we do often colloquially use "X caused Y" to imply the truth of the counter factual "If X had not happened Y would not have happened". Interestingly, a different tense such as "X causes Y" generally does not have the same counter factual implication.
hyperpape 7y ago
You're 100% correct. The point isn't just about causality. As an undergraduate, one of my philosophy professors (Bill Lycan) told a class "never attempt to define anything in terms of counterfactuals. No matter what it is, there will be decisive counterexamples." To be super-clear, this is not a statement about Pearl, and it's not denying that counterfactuals are interesting, just a claim that you can't define much of anything in terms of them. P.S. He actually said "analyze", but the way philosophers use that term, it's appropriate to make the substitution to avoid confusion.
ssivark 7y ago
That seems like an unintentional straw man. The actual counterfactual is: "had I not pushed the ball, it would not have rolled down this hill [at the moment it did]". That says nothing about whether some other cause could not push the ball over at a later instant. Equivalently (if you don't like separating out the causes in time), if formulated as an OR operation on a bunch of causes, the counter factual would be: "Had I not pushed the ball, either the ball would not have rolled down the hill, or there would have been another cause for pushing it down the hill."

epistasis 7y ago

Maybe this is a problem with terminology then; because these definitions are clearly distinct and have entirely separate methods when you formalize them in math. Perhaps we should call Pearl's Rung 3 counterfactuals "subjunctive" or something entirely else to distinguish the concepts and methods of Rung 2 and Rung 3. But these rungs are extremely different in formulations and models, and are clearly distinct. If you want to call rung 2 "simple counterfactuals," well I'm not super into that sort of debate as long as we all agree to the meaning of the terms. And if philosophy finds the distinction between Pearl's Rung 2 and Rung 3 difficult to accept, then it may also mean that philosophy has not yet discovered what Pearl has formulated.

longtom 7y ago

No, these two statements are not equivalent. Perhaps what you have in mind is the contrapositive "This didn't happen, so I didn't do it". More formally, A -> B is equivalent to -B -> -A, but it is not equivalent to -A -> -B.