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

Comments

• GSU Hopeful Core ⭐

  November 2015 1644 karma

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

  nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

  @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.
• 1 Like

  Pacifico Alum Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 8021 karma

  You're confusing conditionality with causation which is a big no go. I'd revisit lessons on both before moving forward.
• kevin0705 Member

  November 2015 13 karma

  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 Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

  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 Member

  November 2015 13 karma

  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 Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

  @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 Alum Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 8021 karma

  You did start with "yeah" hahahha
  
• nicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 7965 karma

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

  Lol--more a rhetorical flourish than indication of agreement
• Jonathan Wang Yearly Sage ⭐

  November 2015 edited November 2015 6874 karma

  @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 Alum Member

  November 2015 697 karma

  I'm just here to read the comments...
• kevin0705 Member

  November 2015 13 karma

  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 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  November 2015 2398 karma

  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 Member

  November 2015 13 karma

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