Editing Proximate and ultimate causation

{{Short description|Event that is closest to, or immediately responsible for causing, some observed result}}
{{distinguish|First uncaused cause|First cause argument}}<!--BEFORE you decide to remove this "distinguish", note that no "ultimate cause" is an Aristotelian "First Uncaused Cause".  (Don't replace it with a {{related|}}). Why can we sat that they are ultimately different? It's because, as you see in [[Quinque Viae]], David Bentley Hart highlights that Thomistic definition of "cause" is different from the modern definition of "cause". See also [[Four causes]].  -->
{{refimprove|date=February 2020}}
[[File:Herald of Free Enterprise WBG.svg|thumb|upright=1.35|[[Why–because analysis|Why–because]] graph of the capsizing of the ''[[Herald of Free Enterprise]]'' (click to see in detail).]]

A '''proximate cause''' is an event which is ''closest'' to, or immediately responsible for [[causality|causing]], some observed result. This exists in contrast to a higher-level '''ultimate cause''' (or '''distal cause''') which is usually thought of as the "real" reason something occurred. 

The concept is used in many fields of research and analysis, including [[data science]] and [[ethology]].

* ''Example:'' Why did the ship sink?
** Proximate cause: Because it was holed beneath the waterline, water entered the hull and the ship became denser than the water which supported it, so it could not stay afloat.
** Ultimate cause: Because the ship hit a rock which tore open the hole in the ship's hull.

In most situations, an ultimate cause may itself be a proximate cause in comparison to a further ultimate cause.  Hence we can continue the above example as follows:

* ''Example:'' Why did the ship hit the rock?
** Proximate cause: Because the ship failed to change course to avoid it.
** Ultimate cause: Because the ship was under autopilot and the autopilot's data was inaccurate.
** (even stronger): Because the shipwrights made mistakes in the ship's construction.
** (stronger yet): Because the scheduling of labor at the shipyard allows for very little rest.
** (in absurdum): Because the shipyard's owners have very small profit margins in an ever-shrinking market.

==In biology==
* '''Ultimate causation''' explains traits in terms of evolutionary forces acting on them.
:''Example:'' female animals often display preferences among male display traits, such as song.  An ultimate explanation based on [[sexual selection]] states that females who display preferences have more vigorous or more attractive male offspring.
* '''Proximate causation''' explains biological function in terms of immediate physiological or environmental factors.
:''Example:'' a female animal chooses to mate with a particular male during a [[mate choice]] trial. A possible proximate explanation states that one male produced a more intense signal, leading to elevated hormone levels in the female producing copulatory behaviour.

Although the behavior in these two examples is the same, the explanations are based on different sets of factors incorporating evolutionary versus physiological factors.

These can be further divided, for example proximate causes may be given in terms of local muscle movements or in terms of [[developmental biology]] (see [[Tinbergen's four questions]]).

== In philosophy ==

In [[analytic philosophy]], notions of cause adequacy are employed in the [[causal model]]. In order to explain the genuine cause of an effect, one would have to satisfy adequacy conditions, which include, among others, the ability to distinguish between:

# Genuine causal relationships and accidents.
# Causes and effects.
# Causes and effects from a common cause.

One famous example of the importance of this is the [[Duhem–Quine thesis]], which demonstrates that it is impossible to test a [[hypothesis]] in isolation, because an [[empirical test]] of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions. One way to solve this issue is to employ contrastive explanations. Several philosophers of science, such as [[Peter Lipton|Lipton]], argue that contrastive explanations are able to detect genuine causes.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lipton|first=Peter|date=1990-01-01|title=Contrastive Explanation|url=http://philpapers.org/rec/LIPCE|journal=Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement|volume=27|pages=247–266|doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2 |doi-access=free}}</ref> An example of a contrastive explanation is a cohort study that includes a control group, where one can determine the cause from observing two otherwise identical samples. This view also circumvents the problem of infinite regression of "why" questions that proximate causes create.

==In sociology==
Sociologists use the related pair of terms "proximal causation" and "distal causation".

'''Proximal causation''': explanation of human social behaviour by considering the immediate factors, such as [[symbolic interaction]], [[Verstehen|understanding (Verstehen)]], and individual milieu that influence that behaviour. Most sociologists recognize that proximal causality is the first type of [[Power (social and political)|power]] humans experience; however, while factors such as family relationships may initially be meaningful, they are not as permanent, underlying, or determining as other factors such as institutions and social networks (Naiman 2008: 5).

'''Distal causation''': explanation of human social behaviour by considering the larger context in which individuals carry out their actions. Proponents of the distal view of power argue that power operates at a more abstract level in the society as a whole (e.g. between economic classes) and that "all of us are affected by both types of power throughout our lives" (ibid). Thus, while individuals occupy [[role]]s and [[social status|statuses]] relative to each other, it is the social structure and institutions in which these exist that are the ultimate cause of behaviour. A human biography can only be told in relation to the social structure, yet it also must be told in relation to unique individual experiences in order to reveal the complete picture (Mills 1959).

==See also==
{{cols}}
*[[Abductive reasoning]]
*[[Causality]]
*[[Causal model]]
*[[Cause of death|Cause]]/[[Manner of death]]
*[[Five whys]]
*[[Four causes]]
*[[Occam's razor]]
*[[Pathology]]
*[[Teleology]]
*[[Psychological distance]]{{colend}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}
* Gray, P. (2007) Psychology (5th Ed.) (pp.&nbsp;64–66) New York: Worth Publishers
* Greenberg, G. (1998) Comparative Psychology: A Handbook. US: Taylor & Francis. pp.&nbsp;666
* Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
* Mills, C.W. ([1959] 2000). The Sociological Imagination. 40th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
* Naiman, J. (2008). How Societies Work: Class, Power and Change in a Canadian Context. 4th ed. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.
* Thierry, B. (2005, October 10). [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bernard_Thierry/publication/237135134_Integrating_proximate_and_ultimate_causation_just_one_more_go!/links/0046353bd4576437e7000000.pdf Integrating proximate and ultimate causation: Just one more go!], Current Science, Vol. 89 (7), 1180–1184. 
* Lipton, Peter (1990). Contrastive Explanation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement  27:247–266.

[[Category:Causality]]
[[Category:Evolutionary biology terminology]]
[[Category:Metaphysical properties]]