Translocated Muscovite

In a recent conversation with some friends, I had my science-loving ass metaphorically handed to me. The essence of their argument was that the principles of science are erroneous because they depend upon the assumption that causality exists; causality, however, cannot be proven to exist, and thus science is based upon an unfounded assumption.

In response, I used the obvious look-at-all-of-the-things-that-science-has-accomplished argument, but somehow the point didn't come across. I also tried to argue that assuming the nonexistence of causality is just as erroneous as assuming its existence, but that argument didn't amount to much either. My question is this: am I being dense, or are my friends?

Or, more specifically, CAN causality be proven to exist? (I suspect not, since the concept of a 'proof' implies the existence of causality a priori.) And, if my suspicion is correct, how might I be able to nonetheless persuade the aforementioned friends that science is not based on faith?

I should probably point out that I'm not referring to causality at the quantum level or anything highly bizarre like that, but in every-day life. Oh yeah, and this is my first post. Um, hi.

Liquidrage

Causality can't really be disproven either.
But causality can be shown to exist easily.
Go line up about 20 dominos's on the floor and let them topple each other over.
The classical world consists of nothing but caused events. What your friends are arguing for it seems is that all events everywhere are causual always have been and always will be. Which is a meaningless position to take. Science wouldn't care if some events couldn't be explained. It's already shown how many even can be explained and the results used to make predictions about the future.

Regardless, ask your friends to name something that is shown to break causality. Even at the quantum level.

So if your friends believe science relies on causality and causality cannot be proven, please ask them to explain the flawless tranfser of trillions of pieces of information accross the internet every day. And like I said, mention that even if not all events are caused, enough are to make science fruitfull.
But if they choose, they can ignore the advances made in medicine and telecommunications and many other fields.
Science moves on with or without them and whether they like it or not.

tronvillain

We observe that causality exists - causes are extremely well correlated with effects. Your friends are of course aware of this, and are simply being deliberately obtuse. There's always the possibility that it's all a coincidence, but that seems unlikely and is not a useful position in any case.

Offer to give them a demonstration of causality in action: throw a book at them. If they duck or try to get out of the way, it is quite likely that they have reached the same conclusion about causality as the rest of us. Really, these people deserve to be laughed at and mocked.

Philosoft

*agrees with tron*

Your friends are asking for a purely metaphysical proof of an empirical occurrence. If they wish to deny the inevitable empirical premises that will appear in any such proof, give them a little demonstration. And read up on "cognitive dissonance" to explain their likely responses.

Shadowy Man

First make your friends prove that they exist! Because if they don't exist then there really isn't much point in them discussing whether or not causality exists.

Translocated Muscovite

Liquidrage, tronvillain, Philosoft:

I agree entirely with what you're saying, but I am interested in the issue because it seems to me that when someone takes the position that causality does not exist, there is nothing that one can do to convince him otherwise, from a strictly philosophical point of view. Other bizarre claims- say, the existence of a Magic Sky Pixie- may similarly allow those who believe in them to reject evidence to the contrary ("evolution is the work of Satan!"), but rejection of causality seems to be the one position which allows one to reject ALL evidence. As such, negation of the claim, even by demonstrating internal inconsistency (reductio ad absurdum, for those who like antiquated Latin expressions) is impossible.

I guess what I’m getting at is this question: isn’t a worldview that holds that causality (and hence logic, as we know it) does not exist essentially as air-tight from a philosophical point of view as a scientific worldview? It may be far more impractical, but doesn’t it explain all empirical data equally well? After all, you can’t point to the improbability of everything being the way it is by chance, because the concept of “probability” goes out of the window along with causality.

Not that any of this really matters; I don't really know why I'm posting this, I guess I just wanted to confirm that there's nothing I can do to get those friends of mine to remove their heads from their asses. Though maybe throwing a book or two might just help...

Shadowy Man:

Err, maybe this is just me being dense, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Liquidrage

Trans.

In your case, well your friends case, they do not have a philosophical leg to stand on.

Their view is no more sound then claiming that the Earth is flat by putting your hand over your eyes, jumping up and down.

You can show that causality exist because you can show effects and their causes. Claiming ignorance to this does not make the causes of certain effects go away.

Also, you/your friends, need to understand that science does not rely on causality. They decided it did but if it was shown that somehow nothing was caused would this mean that mathematics would stop working? Or would certain medicines no longer be effective in curing certain illnesses?

I think it would be beneficial next time you talk to these people to break out the dictionary and look up the meanings to "science" and "causality".

John Page

A proof doesn't necessarily require a priori assumptions about causality. IMO causality is a deduction about how things happen not if. One doesn't need to know how a pin drops to prove that it does.

You can prove a cause of a pin dropping experimentally with a number of people holding pins over floor and some of them letting go of the pins. As somebody already mentioned, the correlation of experimental observation proves (one) cause. By limiting the scope of the example to a well defined experiment you can avoid being dragged into debate about any underlying cause about things dropping generally such as gravity.

Just my 2 cents. Dobri Vyecherom, John

Shadowy Man

I guess my point is that people seem to try and take this concept of "proof" to the extreme. Does everything need to be proven in the mathematical sense. There are many, many things that we know to be true that can't be proven in that sense. That is why I said they should "prove they exist" first. I think they would have as much problem proving they exist as you would have proving that causality exists. Prove the sun will come out tomorrow!

I like this definition of "proof":

proof n.

a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance
by the mind of a truth or fact

b: the process or an instance of establishing the
validity of a statement especially by
derivation from other statements in accordance
with the principles of reasoning

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Shadowy Man ]</p>

Clutch

TM,

Your friends are presenting you with a conditional: If causality is not a well-founded notion, then the validity of science is seriously in doubt. Quite apart from doubts about the truth of this conditional, it is worth noting its logical equivalence to its contrapositive: If it's not the case that the validity of science is seriously in doubt, then it's not the case that causality isn't a well-founded notion.

Now, which one of *those* looks like more promising modus ponens material?