3 ms·

What came first?

by shd4 7y ago

What came first?

datashow 7y ago
"First" does not equal to "cause" either.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Second rules out cause though. If you have A=>B and B=>A as possibilities, and you can rule one of them out with a very simple question, that's a good way to start. If computers came after electricity, they didn't cause electricity. That says nothing about the possibility of electricity causing computers, but it brings us forward nonetheless.
- jjk166 7y ago
  First doesn't necessarily cause second, but second almost certainly doesn't cause first.
peter_d_sherman 7y ago
Disclaimer: I don't know if this article is correct or not. I have no stake in it being correct or not. But, as the previous posters touched upon, there are some interesting philosophical issues at play here. First, we have the old correlation vs. causation issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... Then even if there is causation, we need to ask which came first, the parasite prevalence, or the authoritarian government. Then even if we know the answer to that, we then need to ask if a circular relationship is present, in other words A causes some of B, which in turn causes more of A, which in turn causes more of B. Basically, if a virtuous or vicious cycle is present (virtuous if more of A and B are desired; vicious if less of A and B are desired; in this case vicious, since presumably less of A and of B are desired...) It's sort of like you could ask if "breakdowns in society" are responsibile for authoritarian governments -- or if authoritarian governments are responsible for breakdowns in society... Or, if a little bit of one caused a little bit of the other, which in turn caused more of the first, which in turn caused more of the second, and the cycle became a vicious cycle... So, the roots of what could be a fascinating philophical discussion in that. Its sort of like in Star Wars -- we could ask if the breakdown of society caused the early elements of the Empire, which in turn caused the Rebellion, which in turn caused the furher breakdown of society, which caused the further strengthening of the Empire, which in turn caused the further strengthening of the Rebellion (by opposition)... Vader may have been a key player on one side... but he did not start all of those cycles going...

What came first?

by shd4 7y ago

What came first?

datashow 7y ago

"First" does not equal to "cause" either.

luckylion 7y ago
Second rules out cause though. If you have A=>B and B=>A as possibilities, and you can rule one of them out with a very simple question, that's a good way to start. If computers came after electricity, they didn't cause electricity. That says nothing about the possibility of electricity causing computers, but it brings us forward nonetheless.
jjk166 7y ago
First doesn't necessarily cause second, but second almost certainly doesn't cause first.

peter_d_sherman 7y ago

Disclaimer: I don't know if this article is correct or not. I have no stake in it being correct or not. But, as the previous posters touched upon, there are some interesting philosophical issues at play here. First, we have the old correlation vs. causation issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... Then even if there is causation, we need to ask which came first, the parasite prevalence, or the authoritarian government. Then even if we know the answer to that, we then need to ask if a circular relationship is present, in other words A causes some of B, which in turn causes more of A, which in turn causes more of B. Basically, if a virtuous or vicious cycle is present (virtuous if more of A and B are desired; vicious if less of A and B are desired; in this case vicious, since presumably less of A and of B are desired...) It's sort of like you could ask if "breakdowns in society" are responsibile for authoritarian governments -- or if authoritarian governments are responsible for breakdowns in society... Or, if a little bit of one caused a little bit of the other, which in turn caused more of the first, which in turn caused more of the second, and the cycle became a vicious cycle... So, the roots of what could be a fascinating philophical discussion in that. Its sort of like in Star Wars -- we could ask if the breakdown of society caused the early elements of the Empire, which in turn caused the Rebellion, which in turn caused the furher breakdown of society, which caused the further strengthening of the Empire, which in turn caused the further strengthening of the Rebellion (by opposition)... Vader may have been a key player on one side... but he did not start all of those cycles going...