Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Causality
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{short description|How one process influences another}} {{for-multi|the legal sense|Causation (law)|other uses}} {{distinguish|Casualty (disambiguation){{!}}Casualty}} {{redirect-multi|2|Cause|Cause and effect}} {{Use dmy dates|date=May 2016}} '''Causality''' is an influence by which one [[Event (philosophy)|event]], [[process]], state, or [[Object (philosophy)|object]] (''a'' ''cause'') contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an ''effect'') where the cause is at least partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is at least partly dependent on the cause.<ref name =bunge/> The '''cause''' of something may also be described as the '''reason''' for the event or process.<ref>{{cite web |title=cause |website=Cambridge Dictionary |date=30 October 2024 |url=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cause |access-date=31 October 2024}}</ref><!--- Cause redirects to this article, and it listed on the Reason disambiguation page ---> In general, a process can have multiple causes,<ref name =bunge>Compare: {{Cite book | last1 = Bunge | first1 = Mario | s2cid = 4290073 | author-link1 = Mario Bunge | year = 1959 | title = Causality and Modern Science | journal = Nature | volume = 187 | issue = 4732 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YKkhLwpH09YC | edition = 3, revised | publication-date = 1979| pages = 123β124 | doi = 10.1038/187092A0 | isbn = 9780486144870 | quote = Multiple causation has been defended, and even taken for granted, by the most diverse thinkers [...] simple causation is suspected of artificiality on account of its very simplicity. Granted, the assignment of a single cause (or effect) to a set of effects (or causes) may be a superficial, nonilluminating hypothesis. But so is usually the hypothesis of simple causation. Why should we remain satisfied with statements of causation, instead of attempting to go beyond the first simple relation that is found? }}</ref> which are also said to be ''causal factors'' for it, and all lie in its [[past]]. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its [[future]]. Some writers have held that causality is [[metaphysics |metaphysically]] prior to notions of [[time and space]].<ref name=Robb1911>{{cite book |last1=Robb |first1=A. A. |author1-link=Alfred Robb |title=Optical Geometry of Motion |date=1911 |publisher=W. Heffer and Sons Ltd. |location=Cambridge |url=https://archive.org/details/opticalgeometryo00robbrich |access-date=12 May 2021}}</ref><ref name= Whitehead1929>{{cite book |last1=Whitehead |first1=A.N. |author1-link=Alfred North Whitehead |title=[[Process and Reality]]. An Essay in Cosmology. Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927β1928 |date=1929 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge|isbn=9781439118368}}</ref><ref name=Malament>{{cite journal |last1=Malament |first1=David B. |author1-link=David Malament |title=The class of continuous timelike curves determines the topology of spacetime |journal=Journal of Mathematical Physics |date=July 1977 |volume=18 |issue=7 |pages=1399β1404 |doi=10.1063/1.523436|bibcode=1977JMP....18.1399M |url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02391730/file/Ontological%20Math%5D%5BPhysics%20mirror%20between%20Noether%20and%20Planck.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02391730/file/Ontological%20Math%5D%5BPhysics%20mirror%20between%20Noether%20and%20Planck.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live }}</ref> Causality is an [[abstraction]] that indicates how the world progresses.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mackie|first1=J.L. |title=The Cement of the Universe: a Study of Causation|year=2002 |orig-year=1980|publisher=Oxford University Press|place=Oxford|page=1|quote= ... it is part of the business of philosophy to determine what causal relationships in general are, what it is for one thing to cause another, or what it is for nature to obey causal laws. As I understand it, this is an ontological question, a question about how the world goes on.}}</ref> As such it is a basic concept; it is more apt to be an explanation of other concepts of progression than something to be explained by other more fundamental concepts. The concept is like those of [[wikt:agency|agency]] and [[wikt:efficacy|efficacy]]. For this reason, a leap of [[intuition]] may be needed to grasp it.<ref>[[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead, A.N.]] (1929). ''Process and Reality. An Essay in Cosmology. Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927β1928'', Macmillan, New York; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, [https://archive.org/stream/AlfredNorthWhiteheadProcessAndReality/Alfred%20North%20Whitehead%20-%20Process%20and%20Reality#page/n47/mode/2up "The sole appeal is to intuition."]</ref><ref name="Cheng1997">{{cite journal | last1 = Cheng | first1 = P.W. | year = 1997 | title = From Covariation to Causation: A Causal Power Theory | journal = Psychological Review | volume = 104 | issue = 2| pages = 367β405 | doi=10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.367}}</ref> Accordingly, causality is implicit in the structure of ordinary language,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Copley |first1=Bridget |title=Causation in Grammatical Structures |date=27 January 2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780199672073 |url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/causation-in-grammatical-structures-9780199672073 |access-date=30 January 2016}}</ref> as well as explicit in the language of [[Causal notation|scientific causal notation]]. In English studies of [[Aristotelian philosophy]], the word "cause" is used as a specialized technical term, the translation of [[Aristotle]]'s term Ξ±αΌ°ΟΞ―Ξ±, by which Aristotle meant "explanation" or "answer to a 'why' question". Aristotle categorized the [[Four causes|four types of answers]] as material, formal, efficient, and final "causes". In this case, the "cause" is the explanans for the [[explanandum]], and failure to recognize that different kinds of "cause" are being considered can lead to futile debate. Of Aristotle's four explanatory modes, the one nearest to the concerns of the present article is the "efficient" one. [[David Hume]], as part of his opposition to [[rationalism]], argued that pure reason alone cannot prove the reality of efficient causality; instead, he appealed to custom and mental habit, observing that all human knowledge derives solely from [[experience]]. The topic of causality remains a staple in [[contemporary philosophy]]. {{toclimit}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)