Causal v. Conditional Logic (or Lawgic if you prefer)

Comments

• 3 Likes

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2018 5320 karma

  You've got it twisted. I wrestled with this in the past too.

  Causal arguments must abide the temporal conditions suggested by A causes B. For example, if one suggests that a specific asteroid caused the extinction of dinosaurs, then it must be true that dinosaurs were not extinct before that asteroid collision occurred.

  This temporality is not required for conditional statements. Take for example this conditional: "If you're late for class, then you didn't set your alarm." The timing is reversed---the sufficient condition occurs after the necessary condition meaning that A could not have caused B.

  That's not to say that that a sufficient condition cannot also have a causal relationship with its necessary condition, but we definitely cannot assume that that's the case.
• Andrew Alterio Alum Member

  October 2018 edited October 2018 394 karma

  Thanks for that clarification!
  I think I was confused by the seemingly similar ideas in both that A causes B and if you have A, then you must have B. But, as you explained, in the latter A doesn't necessarily cause B (though it is a possibility), rather A is a symbol (or code) that B must exist too if the conditional relationship is applied. In the causal relationship, A must cause B and not merely inform us that B exists. That's why its chronology is vital to its validity whereas conditionals don't care about validity. They're post-fact ideas (lol).
  In other words, causal relationships tell us what are the facts, while conditionals primarily convey the relationships between said facts.
  I hope I got that right.
• 10 Likes

  akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  October 2018 edited October 2018 9382 karma

  A causal relationship is much weaker than a conditional relationship.

  Here are some examples:

  • Smoking causes cancer. (Smoking ==cause==> Cancer)

  Does this mean that if you smoke, you will always get cancer (Smoking → Cancer)? Nope.

  • An earthquaks causes a tsunami. (Earthquake ==cause==> Tsunami)

  Does this mean that when there is an earthquake, there must be a tsunami (Earthquake → Cancer)?? No. Not every earthquake causes a tsunami.
• 4 Likes

  keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  October 2018 6050 karma

  To reiterate what has already been wonderfully explained by @akistotle and @NotMyName causal relationships are weaker than conditional relationships.

  Another thing I want to explore is what exactly this means.

  If I say that all red apples are delicious, which indicates a conditional relationship, then literally all red apples are delicious. You could point to the most rotten and vile looking red apple in the world or the red apple that the evil queen used to poison snow white, and under our conditional relationship they would be apples that are delicious. To point to a red apple and state that it is not delicious would be a direct contradiction of our conditional. It would be the logical opposite of it.

  However, if I say there's a correlative or causal relationship between red apples and deliciousness then that relationship allows for annomalies. You could point to a red apple that is not delicious and that would be totally acceptable within a causal relationship. The reason being that is that causal relationships just indicate some form of percentage or likelihood. It's not the same as stating [all red apples are delicious]. I hope that makes sense!
• Andrew Alterio Alum Member

  October 2018 394 karma

  Thank you all for your explanations. They've been quite helpful!
• 1 Like

  ellie-2 Alum Member

  April 17 9 karma

  Wondering about this too, 5 years later! These explanations have been super helpful, thanks everyone. Does anyone have any additional thoughts about the distinction between the absence of a sufficient condition vs. the absence of a cause? Whenever an explanation video mentions that the absence or less of a cause can reasonably lead to the absence or less of an effect, I get a little squirmy because of everything I’ve learned from formal logic about negating sufficient conditions meaning the whole relationship is moot.

  For example, 61-4-4 about air pollution and plant diseases (from the current strengthen/weaken lessons). The premises/phenomena are that there was air pollution during the Industrial Revolution and two plant diseases disappeared. The hypothesis/conclusion is that it’s likely that air pollution eradicated the ideas {air pollution =cause=> eradication}. The strengthening answer is that the diseases returned when the air became less polluted {/air pollution =cause=> /eradication}. First of all, am I diagramming that answer choice correctly, and if so, is that a legitimate way of thinking about causal relationships? I mean I guess it is because that’s what multiple videos use, but I’m just getting tripped up in comparison to formal logic. Thanks in advance for any responses!