[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Could you give me your analysis of this?



Howard,

I don't understand your claim that A-causality is metaphorical. In a
causal analysis it provides the elements of the analysis. A metaphore is
something that is "like" something else. Here we are saying that these
causes are real. Regardless of whether or not one likes the form of
analysis, it is certainly a valid exercise, with instrumental value at
least, and I personally would find it much more helpful to discuss the
nature of this kind of analysis rather than its fasionability, which is
what your comment below seems to be referring to. Regarding testible
criteria, again I differ strongly with your claim that causality is not
testible; indeed testing causality claims has been the hallmark of
science from its inception. If it is the limitation to material and
efficient causality that you are referring to, i.e., stating that there
is no way to test claims of formal and final cause, that too makes no
sense. DNA is an example of formal cause - it is a blueprint for
organismic development. Claiming it is the only one that is testible is
nothing but dogma. Also, formal cause is quite testible. If I
hypothesize that people go to the store to buy things - a statement of
final cause - I can do an easy experiment by stopping all sales for a
week at a statisticaly significant number of store and observing the
differential result on the number of people who go to those stores vs
others. I assure you it will drop in direct response to removing the
final cause, as we have all done this experiement many times. So, what
in the world are you talking about here?

JJK

Howard Pattee wrote:

HP: Rosen’s usages of Aristotle’s causes were imaginative metaphors, but they remain metaphysical concepts without observable or objectively testable criteria for distinguishing these causes in real organisms. This does not mean they are not valuable metaphors. It just means that one should remain flexible about meanings and not waste time arguing about precise logics that have no testable criteria.