Advanced Causal Reasoning

[Echx73]

Hi Team,

I was going over the advanced causal reasoning in your LRB 2015 page 257. The book does a good job of explaining all the advanced topics such ad Possible and Probable, Partial and Multi-Cause and Increases and Decreases in likelihood and degree.

My question is, how should I attack the partial cause/multi-cause and Increase and decrease questions? The book does a great job on the Possible/Probable scenario and outlines what the correct answer will be, but I am not sure how to attack the remaining advanced questions. Would you be kind enough to shine some light on this for me!? Thank you!

Eric

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Eric,

First off, contrary to what the LRB may appear to suggest, there is nothing "advanced" about the topics you mentioned. They are all variations on causal arguments, albeit variations that usually make the argument less vulnerable to attack. For instance, a correlation between watching TV and low grades does not prove that one causes the other, and so any author who argues that it does is committing a causal fallacy. However, a more carefully worded argument would be less vulnerable to attack. For instance, if I concluded that "watching TV is a factor responsible for subpar academic performance," my conclusion would be more difficult to challenge.

Your question, if I understand it correctly, is how to undermine arguments that suggest partial cause/multi-cause scenarios. It's tough - and it really depends on the argument. In the above-mentioned example, arguing that malnutrition also causes subpar academic performance isn't going to cut it, because the author allows for the possibility of other causes. However, you can still attack the argument if you can persuasively argue that watching TV is entirely unrelated to lower grades - i.e. that the observed correlation is either purely coincidental, or the result of a third factor causing both correlated events to occur independently. For instance, if you can argue that bad parents are more likely to let their children watch too much TV, and also less likely to encourage them to excel academically, then perhaps bad parenting is the common cause for the two independently correlated events.

Does that make sense? Let me know.

Thanks!

[Echx73]

Hey Nikki!

That is exactly what I think I needed to tie up. Either prove the partial is purely coincidence or prove a third factor that cause both to be correct! Thank you!

Eric