Ok, well, Lemke discussed downward causation in his aarhus paper, Albert Bandura discusses social causes in his work on depression, Giidens discusses causation in several text, as does Durkheim in his book on sociological method and Dorothy Holland discusses agency, which I am finding closely related to causation, and Bateson discusses circular causation in a couple of texts. These are all heavy hitters, respectively in semiotics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, not folk scientists. Se we agree to disagree -- we have very different senses of causation.
bb
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca>
> Bill,
> Even in social science you got to get your relations right.
> Categories are inherently different. They can therefore not be used
> to establish a causal relation, which is framed generally in a form:
>
>
> E = kC
>
> where the equal sign already intimates that E and C are commensurable.
>
> or perhaps more generally, causation is expressed from a
> philosophical perspective as
>
>
>
> ∀x(Fx →Gx)
>
> where events of type F are followed by events of type G.
>
> Otherwise we get ourselves into a quagmire. It makes no sense to
> establish a causation between a teacher saying something and student
> killing her (like Columbine).
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On 20-Jan-06, at 4:07 PM, bb wrote:
>
> We're doing social science, Michael, not physical science.
>
> bb
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > This doesn't stick. Look at any accepted use of cause and effect in
> > the science and scientific literature. It always establishes a
> > relationship between two or more factors, and this in quantitative
> > way.
> >
> > My ouch is not caused by your sticking, because there are lots of
> > stickings that do not lead to saying ouch. If you want to use this as
> > an example, then you relate the force of sticking or the depth of
> > penetration to the intensity of the pain. And then you have exactly
> > what I am talking about.
> >
> > The other is folk science.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20-Jan-06, at 2:50 PM, bb wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> it is easy to slip into a discourse that separates tools and
> >> artifacts from other things, which happens here, too. We then think
> >> in terms of "effects" that one thing has on another--but effects
> >> imply causal relations, which are quantitative rather than
> >> qualitative, which they need to be if they mediate. . .
> >
> >
> > Oh, cause and effect are not strictly quantitative. Engage in this
> > thought experiment. Suppose I stick you with a pin and you say
> > "ouch". The action of sticking with a pin is arguably the cause of
> > the action of uttering "ouch", and there is no quantitative relation
> > necessary, unless perhaps I repeat with needles of increasing size.
> >
> > cheers,
> > bb
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 01 2006 - 01:00:10 PST