5 ms·
> But, in the end, we'll never be absolutely sure that one thing causes another. This is incorrect, because all knowledge is contextual. For instance, it wil
by javert 12y ago
> But, in the end, we'll never be absolutely sure that one thing causes another.
This is incorrect, because all knowledge is contextual.
For instance, it will always be true that gravity causes things to fall to the Earth. Future knowledge can't invalidate that, in can only expand the context.
Another example: Suppose a primitive tribesman climbes a tall tree, looks all around as far as he can see, and proclaims, "The land is flat." The eventual discovery that Earth is round does not invalidate his claim; it expands the context. The context of "the land [I can see]" is not the same as the context of "the entire Earth."
- MichaelBurge 12y agoYour comment about the tribesman reminds me of this essay by Isaac Asimov: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm He makes the great point that the tribesman isn't too far off from the truth: The earth is flat if its curvature is zero, but the 'truth' is that the curvature is almost zero(and the difference isn't measurable by a tribesman).
- javert 12y agoThanks a lot for sharing this. I wasn't aware of it, and really enjoyed it.
- alok-g 12y agoI am not sure actually that gravity "causes" things to fall to the earth. Gravity is the "name" with give to an entity in a mathematical model that somehow fits the observations of things falling very well. What is the "cause" as to why things fall down, AFAIK, that question is still ultimately unanswerable beyond what would be just semantics. Having found the model though, it would be now correct to say that if someone brings a meteor to the field of the earth (cause), the meteor will fall down (effect), as far as the model is correct. I am not yet seeing how your second example is relevant to figuring how to establish causation.
- javert 12y ago> AFAIK, that question is still ultimately unanswerable beyond what would be just semantics. Out of my range of expertise but I think this could be said about all knowledge. For instance, about elementary particles, You can always say, "What if there is one lower level that we can't detect?" And the right take-away is not: "Therefore, we never know the cause of anything." The right take-away is that "causation" has to take into account contextuality. You can make lots of X causes Y statements that are valid, as long as you specify the context. The second example is relevant because it's another illustration that knowledge is contextual. Though it's not about causation. The connection is that I'm trying to use the contextuality of knowledge to defend causation. So I was giving a "pure" example of the contextuality of knowledge that doesn't also involve the complexity of causation.