The Nature of Causation: The Regularity Theory

What is causation? In this first lecture in this series on the nature of causation, Marianne Talbot discusses Hume's famous account of causation, which is a version of the so-called regularity theory.

We have causal theories of reference, perception, knowledge, content and numerous other things. If it were to turn out that causation doesn’t exist, we would be in serious trouble! Causation is so important in fact that it has been said that: “With regard to our total conceptual apparatus, causation is the centre of the centre”, and it has been called ‘the cement of the universe’. In these lectures you will be introduced to the most influential theories of causation, the motivations for them and arguments behind them, and the problems they face.

This is from a six-part lecture series on the nature of causation given at Oxford in 2016.

#Philosophy #Hume #Causation

[richardburt]

Wonderful lecture. I like the way Talbot lets students speak.

[HalTuberman]

This series of lectures is excellent. I didn't quite make it through before... I can't wait for the rest of them to be reposted.

[luzhang]

She mentions 6-part series. Would you please post the other 5 parts as well? Excellent lecture, thanks!

[scotimages]

An exemplar of a good student lecture.

[evinnra]

The first ever acronym I actually like; INUS . It even says what it is and where we find it. :)

[darrellee]

52:00 Rain causes the pitch to be wet.

There is neither a necessary connection (the pitch could be covered
and thus not get wet), nor a counter factual dependence (the pitch
could be wet because of the sprinklers).

But neither of these objections would make us say that "Rain doesn't cause the pitch to get wet" other things be equal.

[darrellee]

But we know that correlation is not causation. It's difference (which we can experience and measure) and not constant conjunction that allows us to identify a causal connection. 42:16

[KipIngram]

Why is the U in INUS? Why does it have to be the case that the fire might have started for other reasons? I get the I, N, and S pieces.

[darrellee]

38:21 "To experience necessity, you have to experience every possible world".
But there is only one possible world available to any given observer.
So everything that happens is necessary. It couldn't be otherwise, because
there is no "otherwise."

Furthermore, we don't need to experience every possible world, we only
need to experience a variety of possible scenarios in this world, and note the
differences and similarities--what changes from scenario to scenario and what does not, and fron this experience we can deduce what is necessary or causal and what is not.

[KipIngram]

55:10 - Better: A is not the only required cause. It's part of a set of things that all must happen to cause B. The light bulb has to be working. The circuit breaker has to be on. The wires have to run from the right places to the right places. The electrical utility has to be supplying power to the site. It's not a very long list, actually, but it is a list. You could *model* this as a probabilistic relationship, but that's a poor model. You're really just working with an incomplete causal set.

[KipIngram]

34:00 - But it is necessary - momentum has to be conserved, and furthermore it has to be *locally* conserved. The first ball can't simply pass through the second ball, so at the very least it's necessary for the second ball to begin moving, and at at least half the velocity of the first ball (and not more than the full velocity of the first ball). Exactly which of those cases you get (one of those extremes or in between) depends on the precise physics of the collision, but something in that range is required.

[languagegame]

give me HUME or give me death... i swallowed my tongue with glee as i listened through the blind dark hours of the night... gimmegimmemoreMORE!!!...

[Anders]

I think causality is systemic! Meaning every event is caused by all of reality both past and future. It will be interesting to compare that to the regularity theory.

[TheMargarita]

I am shocked and disappointed to hear that David Hume gave credence to the idea of the “blank slate.” I’m too new to Hume to be surprised and shocked at anything he may have thought. I may learn that he never had close contact with a human child through their first year after birth.

[stephenlawrence]

"if we want to bring about a B the way we can do it is to bring about an A."

Yes, so in these circumstances in general, afterall I don't know the actual circumstances I'm in when A happens B follows. So that's the regularity. But we also want to know if we think B will happen any way, again in these circumstances in general. So that explains the counterfactual dependency.
So both counterfactual dependency and constant conjunction are required. It's not either or.
Plus thinking of "the circumstances" as these circumstances in general makes sense of it. So no need for concrete other possible worlds. Theoretical possible circumstances we could be in for all we know is all that's required.

[me]

You really have to have the sense knocked out of you in university to hold to Hume's "theory" of causation. It's "explained" by ingeniously constructed (or not) arguments designed only for this purpose. She says, if you were to strike a billiard ball, you can imagine it doing all sorts of things. I can also imagine pink elephants flying on the moon. Given the same state and conditions: the same exact billiard ball struck with the same exact pool cue at the same exact angle on the same exact pool table under the same exact conditions (atmospheric, gravitational, etc.) and assuming no breakdown in materials (the felt of the pool table, etc.), the same exact thing will always happen, whether you do this five times or 500 billion times. The billiard ball won't do all sorts of things, and pink elephants don't fly on the moon.

[KipIngram]

42:00 - Then quantum entanglement comes along and rains all over spatial contiguity. But... only in a limited way. Not enough to let us actually communicate superluminally.

[vickyrowe]

What's difference between philosophy and science? Which came first science or philosophy?
Philosophy is an older word for science and alchemy is an older word for philosophy and magic is an older word for alchemy

[stephenlawrence]

Yes I think it seems like there is a necessary connection. It's logically possible for the second billiard ball to do something else but it seems that if it did that would not fit with the rules the universe follows.

The necessary connection is not about every time one billiard ball hits another. That's a mistake.
The necessay connection appears to be in the actual situation. Not across a number of different situations.

We do tend to think it's physically impossible for the billiard balls to behave differently. If the balls behave oddly we think there is an undiscovered cause or causes.

I don't think it is just habit. It's about the best explanation for what we see.

Yes there is no cauation in individual situations. Causation is about what happens if the cause is added to a set of general situations and what hapoens without it.

[alwaysgreatusa]

'Explanation' is an ambiguous term that is by no means always identical with revealing the causes of something. In this lecture, you are explaining causation -- its importance, its nature, philosophical theories about it, etc. How is any of this a causal explanation ?