Assumption of "/A -> /B " in the causal relationship

kevin0705

Should it be true that the assumption of "/A -> /B " in the causal relationship is A -> B

GSU Hopeful

We don't know that A causes B based merely on the fact that not doing A causes something that is not B.

nicole.hopkins

@kevin0705 said:
"/A -> /B " in the causal relationship is A -> B

No—if you're given /A -> /B, that means you're given B -> A. And To say A -> B from B -> A would be to reverse sufficient and necessary. Big no-no.

Pacifico

You're confusing conditionality with causation which is a big no go. I'd revisit lessons on both before moving forward.

kevin0705

Thanks for your comments. I am still not clear on this. To strengthen /A -> /B, we can say A -> B. For example, according to "Logical Reasoning Bible" by claiming that A caused B, the author assumes that A is the only cause for B and thereby assume that if A does not happen, B does not happen. By using the same logic, if /A causes /B, wouldn't we also have to assume that if /A does not happen, then /B does not happen, which is "A ->B"

nicole.hopkins

Yeah we don't really "do" Powerscore around here. Are you talking about, like, showing the effect without the cause or something like that?

kevin0705

I understand you do not teach Powerscore here. But, I just wanted to confirm the concept I mentioned above. Are you saying that answer to my initial question is "Yes"

nicole.hopkins

@kevin0705 said:
Are you saying that answer to my initial question is "Yes"

... Did I say that?

I'll let @c.janson35 handle this one.

Pacifico

You did start with "yeah" hahahha

nicole.hopkins

@Pacifico said:
You did start with "yeah" hahahha

Lol--more a rhetorical flourish than indication of agreement

Jonathan Wang

@kevin0705 said:
For example, according to "Logical Reasoning Bible" by claiming that A caused B, the author assumes that A is the only cause for B and thereby assume that if A does not happen, B does not happen.

I'd love to see a citation to this statement in the LR Bible itself. This statement either proves that PowerScore's LR Bible is a piece of garbage or it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the logic (or of PowerScore's explanation of the logic) on your part.

An example to illustrate the point: If I tell you that falling off my bike caused me to skin my knee, I am most certainly not assuming that falling off my bike is the only way to skin my knee. It also definitely does not imply that if I don't fall off my bike, that I won't ever skin my knee.

kennedybj

I'm just here to read the comments...

kevin0705

Thanks Jonathan, I see your point and it definitely makes sense. Does the fact that /A -> /B strenghthen the statement that A caused B though?

c.janson35

You don't want to get in the habit of using arrows to express a causal relationship. Arrows are a shorthand that express conditionality.

As for your question: if there is a purported causal relationship in which it is said that A causes B, you can strengthen this causal relationship by showing when A doesn't occur, B doesn't either. This does not prove that a causal relationship in fact exists, but it does strengthen it.

kevin0705

Thanks Jason. I got it. I really appreciate it.