Monday, November 18, 2019
On the debates pertaining to inference of an effect from its cause Essay
On the debates pertaining to inference of an effect from its cause - Essay Example 172). Taking off from Hume, John Stuart Mill Ã¢â¬Å"held that causal inference depends on three factors: first, the cause has to precede the effects; second, the cause and effect have to be related ; and third, other explanations of the cause-effect relationship have to be eliminatedÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 182). In other words, the notion of causation and effect that can be found in the ideas of John Stuart Mill is that causation requires precedence of the cause from the effect, correlation, and that rival hypotheses are ruled out. For Cook and Campbell (1979), however, the most significant contribution of John Stuart Mill to the theory of causality pertains to his notions of the criteria, principles, or Ã¢â¬Å"methodsÃ¢â¬ of agreement, differences, and concomitant variation. The principle of agreement Ã¢â¬Å"states that an effect will be present when the cause is presentÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 182). The principle of difference Ã¢â¬Å"states that the effect will be absent when the cause is absentÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 182). Finally, the principle of concomitant variation Ã¢â¬Å"implies that when both of the above relationships are observed, causal inferences will be all stronger since certain other interpretations of the co-variation between the cause effects can be ruled outÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 182). According to Cook and Campbell (1979, p. ... 183) pointed out that Ã¢â¬Å"the concept of a control group is implicit here and is clearly central in MillÃ¢â¬â¢s thinking about cause.Ã¢â¬ In 1913, Bertrand Russell Ã¢â¬Å"looked to physics and astronomy of his day as the most mature sciences, and he noted their lack of concern with unobservables and explicitness and parsimony of the functional relationships that physicists sought to testÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 172-173).1 However, Russell had asked that asked whether the concept of cause continues to be relevant given that cause Ã¢â¬Å"is not implied by functional relationships of mathematical formÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 173). The Russell viewpoint is positivist Ã¢â¬Å"rejecting unobservables (like cause), and seeking to establish explicit functional laws between continuously measured variables in a closed systemÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 173). Positivists like Russell believe that Ã¢â¬Å"causation is unnecessary because it is unobservableÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 175). The essentialist viewpoint Ã¢â¬Å"argue that the term cause should only be used to refer to variables that explain a phenomenon in the sense that these variables, when taken together, are both necessary and sufficient for the effect to occurÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 177). The essentialists Ã¢â¬Å"equates cause with a constellation of variables that necessarily, inevitably and infallibly results in the effectÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 177). In contrast, those Ã¢â¬Å"who restrict cause to observable necessary and sufficient conditions (or sufficient conditions that operate when all the necessary conditions are met) reject as causes those factors which are known to bring about effects sometimes, but not alwaysÃ¢â¬ (Cook and Campbell 1979, p. 177).