Physical Causation vs other types of causation

[Judaka]

There are a number of things that bother me with regards to general attitudes towards what is subjective and what is not. Causation is one such thing and I thought I'd share my ideas about it to see how it stands up to scrutiny.

So my definitions:
Physical Causation = Perceivable and demonstrable cause and effect.
Causation = Cause and effect

To demonstrate the difference I'll give an example, a very obnoxious, mean-spirited and socially awkward boy ticks off all his classmates at school and draws their ire as a result. Some start to bully him.

As far as physical causation is concerned, those doing the bullying are performing certain actions and saying certain words that we characterised as bullying and that's what is going on here. The cause for the bullying lies at the feet of their actions.

It is possible, however, for one to interpret the victim's nature as being responsible for the bullying. His character and behaviour drew the ire of the children which created the environment that allowed/inspired the bullying to begin with. This, however, can't be called physical causation and it's not even objectively true - yet a causal argument.

One could similarly interpret the true cause to be the intolerance of the classroom towards the victim's characteristics as being responsible or that it occurred because nobody ever tried to understand him or befriend him - or so many other things.

You can blame the parents of either the victim or his classmates, the teachers and the list goes on - all causal arguments but they are interpretations and never played themselves out in reality as people are describing them. They are refutable and subjective, compared to the irrefutable truth that the victim is being treated in a way which we or many may describe as bullying and that the cause of this, is the actions of those doing the bullying.

There are other easier examples to understand, like the idea of "deserving" something for instance. A causal argument that is entirely subjective and interpretative.

Was this easy to understand and do you agree with the distinction?

[Skip]

It is possible, however, for one to interpret the victim's nature as being responsible for the bullying. His character and behaviour drew the ire of the children which created the environment that allowed/inspired the bullying to begin with. This, however, can't be called physical causation and it's not even objectively true - yet a causal argument.
......
Was this easy to understand and do you agree with the distinction?

Yes, it's easy to understand why an apologist would look for a means of deflecting blame from the immediate perpetrator to the proximal victim. Of course, that's arbitrary: you quit at Step #1, and slurred over all the more complex social issues - all the etceteras that go into any interpersonal situation. You could just as well have quit at the teachers, the parents, the culture , etc. You could have gone sideways and questioned the definition of bullying, what makes it acceptable or unacceptable -- an on, all the way back to nature and pack behaviour.

What's to agree with? You apply a physics concept to a sociology question and then say it doesn't apply.
Of course it doesn't apply: it's out of context.
If you want clear communication, decide what your topic is and use the appropriate terms and metrics consistently.

[Walker]

There are other easier examples to understand, like the idea of "deserving" something for instance. A causal argument that is entirely subjective and interpretative.

Was this easy to understand and do you agree with the distinction?

If you take away the legal implication, seems like "cause" and "just cause" is a distinction that covers the same ground, with cause being subjective, and just cause being objective.

[Judaka]

What's to agree with? You apply a physics concept to a sociology question and then say it doesn't apply.
Of course it doesn't apply: it's out of context.
If you want clear communication, decide what your topic is and use the appropriate terms and metrics consistently.

Causation is absolutely not limited to physics and has a wide range of uses, from law to psychology and even philosophy. Within our culture, people make causal arguments constantly that have nothing to do with physics, causal ideas are constantly talked about almost every social circumstance. Causation is understood in terms of character, attributes and so on. It is not limited to demonstrable causation but also by deducing based on probability or concepts and the list really goes on forever.

I am drawing an objective truth/subjective truth distinction between these various uses of causation in our language because I don't feel the difference is acknowledged very often. It is not always clear to some people when causation is demonstrable and when it isn't and when interpretation comes into play and when it doesn't.

The usefulness of the distinction is to help people to separate these instances because I think it's important.

So clearly in the "was it easy to understand" part, I can assume it was a big no for you but do you disagree that there is a general lack of understanding about the aforementioned differences and perhaps, utility in separating them definitionally?

My own view is, of course. that it's a good idea to separate them and I feel the main reason is that causation is the basis for understanding how something works in one case but in another, it's a subjective idea that you don't learn anything by agreeing with or following. I'm not saying everyone needs this to be pointed out but that I see examples all the time of misunderstandings.

If you take away the legal implication, seems like "cause" and "just cause" is a distinction that covers the same ground, with cause being subjective, and just cause being objective.

Not sure I understand this, can you elaborate?

[Impenitent]

there is no necessary connection between events...



-Imp

[Skip]

Causation is absolutely not limited to physics and has a wide range of uses, from law to psychology and even philosophy.

Indeed. Then don't say "physical causation vs".
There is no versus; no comparison. There are chains of causation. In sociology and psychology, these tend to be so complex and long and branched and intertwined that even with the best possible information, we can only trace them back a few step before we're lost in conjecture.

I am drawing an objective truth/subjective truth distinction between these various uses of causation in our language

That's fine. But more precision would be more fruitful.

It is not always clear to some people when causation is demonstrable and when it isn't and when interpretation comes into play and when it doesn't.

Okay. So you could have said that more clearly. Here is the ambiguity:

As far as physical causation is concerned, those doing the bullying are performing certain actions and saying certain words that we characterised as bullying and that's what is going on here.

See? The bullies are performing actions - yes, that's physical. But what they do is not physically caused, like being manipulated by some outside presence, or cattle-prodded by a villain or hard-wired and programmed. Their acts do not contain the cause of bullying. There may be motives (inside of the bully) and triggers (outside the bully) that contribute to the chain of causation, but the acts themselves are the result.
and this

The cause for the bullying lies at the feet of their actions.

is purely incomprehensible.

Causation may be evident or obscure, demonstrable and reproducible or incident-specific and idiosyncratic, psychogenic or sociogenic, biological or cultural, an so forth. And I'd be very cautious in resorting to the biological or hard-wired arguments.
I suggest you start with a simpler example and trace it all the way through an argument in internally consistent terminology, contrasting a subjective and objective viewpoint.

The usefulness of the distinction is to help people to separate these instances because I think it's important.

Sure. If you don't confuse them at the outset.

do you disagree that there is a general lack of understanding about the aforementioned differences and perhaps, utility in separating them definitionally?

Not sure there is any need for yet another subjective/objective argument. But there certainly is no harm, either.
Just come up with more definitive definitions.

[commonsense]

( disregard this post )

[Lacewing]

( disregard this post )

Too late. What's your point?

(Where the hell is Harbal? I can't cover all of these bases. )

[commonsense]

( disregard this post )

Too late. What's your point?

(Where the hell is Harbal? I can't cover all of these bases. )

I am much chagrined to say that after submitting a post I tried unsuccessfully to delete it. I hope this explains things well enough.

[Judaka]

Indeed. Then don't say "physical causation vs".
There is no versus; no comparison. There are chains of causation. In sociology and psychology, these tend to be so complex and long and branched and intertwined that even with the best possible information, we can only trace them back a few step before we're lost in conjecture.

I'm not trying to draw a comparison or make a versus, I'm trying to highlight the differences between the two. I don't think it should be necessary, I only think that grey areas exist between the two concepts which are difficult to clarify.

See? The bullies are performing actions - yes, that's physical. But what they do is not physically caused, like being manipulated by some outside presence, or cattle-prodded by a villain or hard-wired and programmed. Their acts do not contain the cause of bullying. There may be motives (inside of the bully) and triggers (outside the bully) that contribute to the chain of causation, but the acts themselves are the result.
and this

I see your point here and perhaps I was wrong to phrase it as I did. I'm not saying the things I listed previously can't be factors in why the bullying occurred but that those things are interpreted and characterised in ways that characterise the nature of the cause. Like whether the bullies are too intolerant or the victim too unlikable.

I do think upon reflection that using a social example was invalid to what I wanted to say because of your remarks here.

I know that factors in why the bullies decided to do what they did aren't subjective and what I'm really trying to distinguish between is causation that impacts the physical world and causal arguments asserted from subjective distinctions. Such as whether or not someone deserves something and so on.

Not sure there is any need for yet another subjective/objective argument. But there certainly is no harm, either.
Just come up with more definitive definitions

.

I have an interest in the idea but I haven't entirely figured things out yet. People use causal arguments for their emotions (which are under their control), their interpretations (which are subjective) and their actions (for which their motivations are perhaps a mix) and I think if one can't properly distinguish between what can be true and what is an opinion, then one can't know how to deal with these arguments.

[commonsense]

I'm not trying to draw a comparison or make a versus, I'm trying to highlight the differences between the two.

This is indeed what is called a comparison.

[Belinda]

I agree with you , Judaka, that every event is a caused event. The causes of any given event are arranged in causal chains over a time sequence, or they may be concurrent causes such as weather systems, or for instance an ongoing relationship, or the causes of an event may even include what we call law of nature (or of science) such as the law of gravity or the laws that govern inherited traits.

All this being the case, as we agree, then whence personal responsibility? This is the hard question. It's a question which has ramifications for criminal justice, and for forgiveness .We find in fact that political and interpersonal liberals and left-wingers are inclined towards criminal justice as rehabilitation and not for retribution. Less liberal people and political right wingers are more inclined to be punitive and use imprisonment as retribution as much as for rehabilitation.

BTW a mental event is an event too.

[Skip]

I'm not trying to draw a comparison or make a versus,

Then why did you put that as a title?

I'm trying to highlight the differences between the two.

Two whats? You say "physical causation" (which refers to things like heat, velocity, combustion, etc.) and then go on to talk about complex interpersonal relations, where no physical causation is evident. Then you say "other", which you don't define or describe at all. Before you can compare, contrast, differentiate, distinguish or highlight between , you need clear definitions of two separate concepts.

I do think upon reflection that using a social example was invalid to what I wanted to say

It would be perfectly valid, if you were clear in what you want to demonstrate and then choose a simple example - one discreet, finite transaction between two individuals - to begin with, rather than a fluid, open-ended relationship among many people.

Example:
1. John A called John L a name. 2. John L punched John A on the nose. 3. John A's nose bled copiously.

This is a single encounter, in which several events take place, each of which is preceded by a chain of causation.
#3 is the only physical cause: the nose bled as a result of the punch.
The causation for #2 would most obviously be #1 - the direct and observable [objective] cause of the punch was the name-calling.
This is where you can now introduce complications, each of which may affect or even determine subjective attribution of cause.
Who are the participants? How old? How big? What ethnicity? What is their prior relationship?
What was the 'name' A called L? What is the cultural significance of that word? What is the personal significance?
Is this the first such incident, or is there a history of provocation?
What is the social milieu in which this encounter takes place?
All these factors are contributing causes to an ongoing situation which culminates in this single incident.

Alternatively, you stick to observable events among inanimate objects, where all of the causation is physical, but not necessarily observable or known to the reader.
1. A rock rolled down the mountainside. 2. A hundred tons of snow cascaded down after it.
A single, observable, measurable event, that looks as if #1 directly caused #2.
But was this necessarily the case?
What caused the rock to roll down?
Was the rock dislodged by the same unobserved prior event that also set off the avalanche?
Did the avalanche push the rock?
You can introduce previously unknown factors that cast doubt on the first impression.

[Judaka]

Then why did you put that as a title?

WELL I forgot about that... I suppose I am drawing a comparison as commonsense pointed out, what I am trying to say is that the comparison is necessary because of misunderstandings and not because there's any real need to compare the two on a philosophical level.

I am also not trying to use the term "physical causation" to mean anything other than what I defined in my OP which was "perceivable and demonstrable cause and effect". I apologise if I used a term from physics that caused any confusion, I'm not trying to make a thread about psychology vs physics or anything of that nature.

It would be perfectly valid if you were clear in what you want to demonstrate and then choose a simple example - one discreet, finite transaction between two individuals - to begin with, rather than a fluid, open-ended relationship among many people.

As Belinda said, I agree that subjective ideas can be considered components of causation and that as you said, a causal chain may be too complicated for us to understand but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not talking about people being wrong in their understanding of a causal chain either.

My example in OP was wrong in trying to express what I wanted to say.

We can call the unpopularity of the victim a factor in why he was bullied and I wanted to say what occurred can be characterised differently. He was unpopular because he behaved in the manner in which he did and the children disliked that, I thought this was an OR and not an AND. Really I was talking about moral judgements like who was justified and who is at fault, my example doesn't show what I wanted.

It only works if we start with a subjective distinction like "I don't deserve to be happy because I'm a terrible son" that I can start talking about a subjective distinction influencing causation and not just being a judgement after the fact.

I feel that the characterisations, judgements, interpretations of a causal chain can be misunderstood to be components of the causal chain or as being objectively true characterisations but that's got nothing to do with causation itself.

I also see that in your examples, misunderstandings can be made and one could attribute a greater percentage of responsibility to one of any such factors you mention based on a personal bias. I agree you succeeded in making this point better than I did.

[Skip]

I've had more practice.
Anyway
- pare down your subject matter to essentials
- be precise in your terminology
- think through what you intend to demonstrate and invent your examples so as to exclude unnecessary complication
- label accurately