causation (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, May 23, 2014, 16:50 (3837 days ago) @ David Turell

GEORGE: Why some of us are obsessed with causation-http://www.psmag.com/science/creatures-of-coherence-why-were-so-obsessed-with-causation...-Perhaps the article is only available to us in the UK, as I had no trouble accessing it. I do, however, have trouble with the content. The author cherry picks a few examples of what he considers to be random events, and totally ignores the billions of examples in which there is a clear relationship between cause and effect. Even his own examples are extremely dubious (e.g. an athlete's poor performance, or the ups and downs of the stock market, both of which are just as likely to have a concrete cause as to be the result of random factors). However, his apparently reasonable conclusion needs very careful analysis:-"Humanity's need for concrete causation likely stems from our unceasing desire to maintain some iota of control over our lives. That we are simply victims of luck and randomness may be exhilarating to a madcap few, but it is altogether discomforting to most. By seeking straightforward explanations at every turn, we preserve the notion that we can always affect our condition in some meaningful way. Unfortunately, that idea is a facade. Some things don't have clear answers. Some things are just random. Some things simply can't be controlled."-I think most people would accept that some events are random and can't be controlled, and that we can't ALWAYS affect our condition, but this doesn't mean that the idea is ALWAYS a facade. A sportsman may not have trained as well as he should, e.g. because of personal problems; the stock market may have crashed because certain institutions have gone bust. If we fall ill, perhaps there is a definite cause which the doctor can remove. To say we are "obsessed" with causation is simply a negative use of language that ignores virtually every facet of human progress, from medicine to technology to psychiatry to commerce to the very food we eat.
 
However, the author may have an agenda. The article begins:-"We are pattern seekers, believers in a coherent world, in which regularities appear not by accident but as a result of mechanical causality or of someone's intention."
Daniel Kahneman's words ring true for all of us; humans are creatures of causality. We like effects to have causes, and we detest incoherent randomness. Why else would the quintessential question of existence give rise to so many sleepless nights, endear billions to religion, or single-handedly fuel philosophy?-I don't know enough about Ross Pomeroy or the Pacific Standard to tell whether " victims of luck and randomness" is a way of saying that luck and randomness are his answer to the quintessential question of existence. If so, he has chosen what seems to me a remarkably inept way of putting his case. If not,do we really need to be told that "some things don't have clear answers"?