4 ms·

But the because is not about imagining another state of the world, it's about using logic. If me turning on the light is a necessary condition for the light be

But the because is not about imagining another state of the world, it's about using logic. If me turning on the light is a necessary condition for the light being on, then it implies that if I did not turn on the light the light is off. There is no speculation. This is also what distinguishes this one "counterfactual" from all the others. The article seems to completely ignore that we can readily argue about negative statements. I highly doubt that airplane crash investigators would avoid counterfactuals.

kozd 5y ago
How would you determine that it's a necessary condition and not just a sufficient condition?
js8 5y ago
I think the article doesn't say that the counterfactuals are not useful, it explicitly mentions they can be used as recommendations, as in "do not forget to monitor your disk space". What they say is that counterfactuals stop the search for the root cause. Not monitoring disk space isn't a root cause of the filled disk. The root cause might be "application has suddenly written too many logs". This gives another set of counterfactuals, like "if your application was configured properly, it would write less logs". But it also gives an option of continuing the search for the root cause, which might be, for example, "there is a bug in the application which triggered the log writes". I think the point of methods like 5 whys is not to stop at the first set of counterfactuals and deepen the search.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Let's take a different example, the plane crashed because the landing gear did not retract. This is a counterfactual according to the article, do you really believe it stops us for looking at the root cause for why the landing gear didn't retract? In fact, I don't think we would be able to even investigate the root cause if we hadn't first identified the cause of the landing gear not retracting.
  - js8 5y ago
    I think your example is not a counterfactual, because in your world, landing gear actually didn't retract. Remember, whether something is counterfactual or not depends on what the facts are. Had the landing gear been retracted in your hypothetical world, then it would be a counterfactual, but it probably wouldn't arise because it's not something out of ordinary - the landing gear retracting is a usual procedure. I think humans are more prone to make the mistake that is described in the article (stopping to search for the root cause) when they see a counterfactual conditional which premise is, in the factual, a procedural error (for example, "operator failed to monitor the disk space"). We see an error and mistake it for the root cause.
scatters 5y ago
There are no necessary conditions in the physical world. If you hadn't turned on the light, perhaps someone else would have. Or perhaps a bird or a meteorite could have flown through the window and struck the switch in just such a way as to turn it on. Or perhaps a wire could have come loose inside the switch and fallen in just such a way as to close the circuit.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Sure there are necessary conditions in the real world. It is a necessary condition for the apple to hang on the tree, for it to fall from the tree onto Newton's head. By arguing there are no necessary conditions you are essentially saying we can't use mathematics to describe nature and there are no laws of physics.
  - scatters 5y ago
    For the apple to fall on Newton's head? It could have been dropped by a passing swallow (or possibly two, held on a line between the dorsal guiding feathers). For it to fall from the tree? Well, that's a linguistic trick; for it to fall from the tree it must have been hanging on the tree, so that necessary condition is actually a tautology. Physics describes a world with statistical regularities, not absolute laws. Even a clockwork Newtonian universe is not time-reversible; it has multiple pasts that can lead to the observed present.
    - nytgop77 5y ago
      Regarding Newtonian universe. Is that really true, that multiple pasts can exist? Some source would be very welcome.
      - svieira 5y ago
        It's not that "multiple pasts can exist", it's that "multiple pasts _would be sufficient to explain_ the effect that is being observed now". E. g. "The apple hit Newton on the head" could be explained by: 1. The apple was hanging on the tree at `t - 1` and the wind shook it loose. 2. The apple was flying through the air because his mother threw it and it collided with his head 3. The apple spontaneously generated due to as-yet-not-understood quantum fluctuations 3 meters above his head.
munchbunny 5y ago
If me turning on the light is a necessary condition for the light being on, then it implies that if I did not turn on the light the light is off. To be pedantic, it’s not quite that either. The logic theorem states if A => B then !B => !A. The => means that A is sufficient for B, because “false => true” evaluates to “true” but “true => false” evaluates to “false”. If it were “necessary”, those statements would evaluate the opposite way. This means that if me turning on the lights is sufficient for the light being on, then the light being off is sufficient to deduce that I did not turn it on.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I don't think you're contradicting my post. You are simply stating that me turning on the light is not a necessary condition, but a sufficient condition (which is a reasonable argument). My argument was that if the statement "if the light is on it was turned on by me" is true (i.e. the me turning on is a necessary condition), then if I did not turn on the light the light is off [edited after mistyping before]. I think this works better with other examples, because as you state, we typically think more of the turning on as a sufficient condition.
  - munchbunny 5y ago
    I don't think you're contradicting my post. Yes, it wasn’t my intent to contradict your overall point, just to correct your logic. My argument was that if the statement "if the light is on it was turned on by me" is true (i.e. the me turning on is a necessary condition) then it follows that if the light is off, I have not turned it on. I disagree with you here. The counterfactual, or at least the logic theorem, for the statement [light is on] => [I turned the light on] (me turning it on is necessary for it to be on) is [I did not turn the light on] => [the light is not on] That’s sound, though it’s not a particularly insightful leap of logic. If you translate this to the author’s point, they’re basically saying that !A => !B doesn’t tell you that A => B. And that’s correct as far as Boolean logic goes. I am unclear on whether we disagree on that point.
    - cycomanic 5y ago

kozd 5y ago

How would you determine that it's a necessary condition and not just a sufficient condition?

js8 5y ago

I think the article doesn't say that the counterfactuals are not useful, it explicitly mentions they can be used as recommendations, as in "do not forget to monitor your disk space". What they say is that counterfactuals stop the search for the root cause. Not monitoring disk space isn't a root cause of the filled disk. The root cause might be "application has suddenly written too many logs". This gives another set of counterfactuals, like "if your application was configured properly, it would write less logs". But it also gives an option of continuing the search for the root cause, which might be, for example, "there is a bug in the application which triggered the log writes". I think the point of methods like 5 whys is not to stop at the first set of counterfactuals and deepen the search.

cycomanic 5y ago
Let's take a different example, the plane crashed because the landing gear did not retract. This is a counterfactual according to the article, do you really believe it stops us for looking at the root cause for why the landing gear didn't retract? In fact, I don't think we would be able to even investigate the root cause if we hadn't first identified the cause of the landing gear not retracting.
- js8 5y ago
  I think your example is not a counterfactual, because in your world, landing gear actually didn't retract. Remember, whether something is counterfactual or not depends on what the facts are. Had the landing gear been retracted in your hypothetical world, then it would be a counterfactual, but it probably wouldn't arise because it's not something out of ordinary - the landing gear retracting is a usual procedure. I think humans are more prone to make the mistake that is described in the article (stopping to search for the root cause) when they see a counterfactual conditional which premise is, in the factual, a procedural error (for example, "operator failed to monitor the disk space"). We see an error and mistake it for the root cause.

scatters 5y ago

There are no necessary conditions in the physical world. If you hadn't turned on the light, perhaps someone else would have. Or perhaps a bird or a meteorite could have flown through the window and struck the switch in just such a way as to turn it on. Or perhaps a wire could have come loose inside the switch and fallen in just such a way as to close the circuit.

cycomanic 5y ago
Sure there are necessary conditions in the real world. It is a necessary condition for the apple to hang on the tree, for it to fall from the tree onto Newton's head. By arguing there are no necessary conditions you are essentially saying we can't use mathematics to describe nature and there are no laws of physics.
- scatters 5y ago
  For the apple to fall on Newton's head? It could have been dropped by a passing swallow (or possibly two, held on a line between the dorsal guiding feathers). For it to fall from the tree? Well, that's a linguistic trick; for it to fall from the tree it must have been hanging on the tree, so that necessary condition is actually a tautology. Physics describes a world with statistical regularities, not absolute laws. Even a clockwork Newtonian universe is not time-reversible; it has multiple pasts that can lead to the observed present.
  - nytgop77 5y ago
    Regarding Newtonian universe. Is that really true, that multiple pasts can exist? Some source would be very welcome.
    - svieira 5y ago
      It's not that "multiple pasts can exist", it's that "multiple pasts _would be sufficient to explain_ the effect that is being observed now". E. g. "The apple hit Newton on the head" could be explained by: 1. The apple was hanging on the tree at `t - 1` and the wind shook it loose. 2. The apple was flying through the air because his mother threw it and it collided with his head 3. The apple spontaneously generated due to as-yet-not-understood quantum fluctuations 3 meters above his head.

munchbunny 5y ago

If me turning on the light is a necessary condition for the light being on, then it implies that if I did not turn on the light the light is off. To be pedantic, it’s not quite that either. The logic theorem states if A => B then !B => !A. The => means that A is sufficient for B, because “false => true” evaluates to “true” but “true => false” evaluates to “false”. If it were “necessary”, those statements would evaluate the opposite way. This means that if me turning on the lights is sufficient for the light being on, then the light being off is sufficient to deduce that I did not turn it on.

cycomanic 5y ago
I don't think you're contradicting my post. You are simply stating that me turning on the light is not a necessary condition, but a sufficient condition (which is a reasonable argument). My argument was that if the statement "if the light is on it was turned on by me" is true (i.e. the me turning on is a necessary condition), then if I did not turn on the light the light is off [edited after mistyping before]. I think this works better with other examples, because as you state, we typically think more of the turning on as a sufficient condition.
- munchbunny 5y ago
  I don't think you're contradicting my post. Yes, it wasn’t my intent to contradict your overall point, just to correct your logic. My argument was that if the statement "if the light is on it was turned on by me" is true (i.e. the me turning on is a necessary condition) then it follows that if the light is off, I have not turned it on. I disagree with you here. The counterfactual, or at least the logic theorem, for the statement [light is on] => [I turned the light on] (me turning it on is necessary for it to be on) is [I did not turn the light on] => [the light is not on] That’s sound, though it’s not a particularly insightful leap of logic. If you translate this to the author’s point, they’re basically saying that !A => !B doesn’t tell you that A => B. And that’s correct as far as Boolean logic goes. I am unclear on whether we disagree on that point.
  - cycomanic 5y ago