so if we don't know that something is happening for a fact, does that mean that causation logic doesn't apply to it?
considering the causation logic describes the relationship between two phenomena.
Example:
conclusion: Driver's seat position may affect safety.
premises: the seat position can be uncomfortable which causes distractions to the drivers which reduces safety.
the premises demonstrate causal logic but are the premises able to provide an explanation for the conclusion given that the conclusion isn't exactly a phenomenon?
p.s. I'm coming back here from PA LR question and this question came up.
@shadimeraji61 and what was the answer? Just to clarify, are you saying that if something hasn't happened or is happening then does causal logic apply to it? because if nothing happened then there is nothing causing it?
before LSAT, I thought a phenomenon is like, ET, Aurora Borealis, JY, etc...never thought in a million years it'd be a fact or event, and now that I'm 7sage-washed, can't figure out how I ever thought a phenomenon ISN'T a fact/event. In a game of 'word association', you say phenomenon, I'd say: Hypothesis
So the mechanics of causation is the relationship between two phenomena, one of which will be the "cause" and the other the "effect." But what exactly is in need of the explaination/hypothsis? is it the phenomna? the "cause" and "effect"? causation itself?
Also, woudln't the correct explaination/hypotheiss be causation itself? so can we say the explaination is causation itself?
What requires explanation is the nature of the causal relationship itself, namely the relationship between the cause and the effect, and whether we can rightfully say that any such relationship exists. Many philosophers have been skeptical of the existence of causal relationships, particularly David Hume. Hume thought that claims about causality (i.e. A causes B) weren't necessarily empirically sound and thus couldn’t be proven. He had his reasons for thinking this, but it's too lengthy to go into, and I don't want to misrepresent him, granted I don't entirely understand his position 🤣
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
24 comments
bold of you to assume I don't care about birds in the sky
hit it like rompompompom!
@emilyclangie get it hot like papa john's perhaps?
@lexa_b it's a femininominon
@emilyclangie did you hear me???
@emilyclangie I don't understanddddd why can't any mannnnnn
if i came back home to my trash can knocked over i would assume it was probably the fat cat from earlier lessons
this made me jiggle
Justice for Mr. Fat Cat! He did nothing wrong!
This made my day, thank you
does he have a history of misbehavior? are there other pets around?
this made me giggle
i can't not read this as femininomenon
I'm loling at this
You exist in the table setting.
@heyychrissaaay me too lol.
so if we don't know that something is happening for a fact, does that mean that causation logic doesn't apply to it?
considering the causation logic describes the relationship between two phenomena.
Example:
conclusion: Driver's seat position may affect safety.
premises: the seat position can be uncomfortable which causes distractions to the drivers which reduces safety.
the premises demonstrate causal logic but are the premises able to provide an explanation for the conclusion given that the conclusion isn't exactly a phenomenon?
p.s. I'm coming back here from PA LR question and this question came up.
@shadimeraji61 and what was the answer? Just to clarify, are you saying that if something hasn't happened or is happening then does causal logic apply to it? because if nothing happened then there is nothing causing it?
poor dolphins
how could you have done this, God?!
Thanks, chuck, for calling out god.
before LSAT, I thought a phenomenon is like, ET, Aurora Borealis, JY, etc...never thought in a million years it'd be a fact or event, and now that I'm 7sage-washed, can't figure out how I ever thought a phenomenon ISN'T a fact/event. In a game of 'word association', you say phenomenon, I'd say: Hypothesis
#help
So the mechanics of causation is the relationship between two phenomena, one of which will be the "cause" and the other the "effect." But what exactly is in need of the explaination/hypothsis? is it the phenomna? the "cause" and "effect"? causation itself?
Also, woudln't the correct explaination/hypotheiss be causation itself? so can we say the explaination is causation itself?
What requires explanation is the nature of the causal relationship itself, namely the relationship between the cause and the effect, and whether we can rightfully say that any such relationship exists. Many philosophers have been skeptical of the existence of causal relationships, particularly David Hume. Hume thought that claims about causality (i.e. A causes B) weren't necessarily empirically sound and thus couldn’t be proven. He had his reasons for thinking this, but it's too lengthy to go into, and I don't want to misrepresent him, granted I don't entirely understand his position 🤣