|
Judith,
I re-read p. 10
and I see nothing to change my mind. On the contrary, even section 3G is
entitled "Entailment in the Ambience: Causality". That to me
says it all. And, later in that section:
"In this way, entailment relations between phenomena are subsumed under the
general framework of causality."[LI p.57, ital. orig.],
and later:
"We shall thus accept this view, that entailment relations can exist between
phenomena and that their study comprises causality; hence science and
causality are too that extent synonymous."[LI p.57]
I agree that we
learn about causal entailments by virtue of the observations of phenomena of
which demonstrate such relations. And I take the view that this study
comprises causality. In my view, we have no scientific basis for
supposing that there exist "underlying entailment patterns" which exceed those which we
are able to observe either directly or indirectly (i.e., as in a "hidden
variables" kind of way - see The Limits of the Limits of
Science p. 87-88). If we have evidence that such additional
entailment relations hold, then that is because we have phenomena on which to
base that claim; that relation is thus part of causality. If we have no
evidence, then we have no basis for asserting that some additional causal
entailment(s) exist. By the same token, an absence of such evidence is not proof
of the non-existence of additional causal entailments, so we always have to
leave the door open to the possibility of uncovering additional entailments.
Likewise, such additional evidence can lead to a revamping of our understanding
of previously known entailments. I consider any such undiscovered causal
entailments to fall under the heading of causality, as I would consider
undiscovered stars to fall under the heading of astronomical objects, for in
either case, the existence of either a causal relation or a star is borne out
only insofar as there arises phenomena to indicate that existence, and such
evidence places their existence into those respective
categories.
Regards,
Tim
|