Re: "It's a causal world."

[John Kineman <***>]

Judith

I agree, the arguments Howard is presenting, which are not wrong I'm
certain, are nevertheless at a deeper metaphysical and philosophical
level than the development of practical theory even in physics. I would
wager that if I were to attend virtually any applied physics class beign
taught on campus today, save perhaps some quantum theory, I would be
presented with ideas of causality. I am aware, however, that speaking in
terms of causes has gone out of style recently in many fields. Even in
ecology, the language is one of statistical correlation, which
personally I lothe. I see it as nothing more than a political cover, a
CYA expediency, a certain form of cowardice in applying scientific
interpretation to data. In the end we will have only data points and
statistics; however data tell us absolutly nothing about what is
happening in nature. Data are only reference points and it is our
creative ideas that provide models for reality. The purpose of data is
to constrain those ideas. The irony of all this is that the whole reason
some are afraid now to talk about causes is that causes were wrongly and
tenatiously prusued as absolutes in physical theories. People in other
disciplines actually knew better, but were then called "soft" for that
knowledge. Because physics then got itself burned with the idea, now
suddenly nobody can talk about it. We needn't be held hostage by either
the successes or failures of physics. The statement "A causes B" has
meaning, meaning that is conferred by one's theory, or else I quite
agree, we can all go home.

JK

Judith Rosen wrote:

> I don't see "causality" as being metaphorical in the slightest. I think
> ordinary logic and common sense dictate that my father's parental statement
> to us growing up ("It's a causal world, kid.") was right on the money. The
> whole notion of "consequences" is built on the simple fact that one thing
> leads to another, either directly or indirectly, in this universe. Human
> senses and intelligence are built around this fact and have incorporated it
> into nearly every aspect of how our minds process sensory input. The fact
> that we are now rather overpopulated tends to prove that there is a survival
> benefit to the way our minds work-- in other words, we're successfully using
> those tools to manipulate our survival chances.
>
> In one of the presentations I attended of my father's-- I can't remember if
> it was in Linz, Austria or Santa Fe, New Mexico (USA)... but he was talking
> about the limits and the goals of science... and he said, "We all have to
> agree on two things: First, that there are consistent causal pathways in all
> phenomena in the natural world and Second, that our minds and senses are
> capable of perceiving and interpreting meaningful information about these
> causal pathways. If either of these two things are not true, then we can all
> go home."
>
> Judith