Fundamentals of Philosophy. Causal Theories

© Galina Nikolayevna Kupriyeva, 2024

ISBN 978-5-0064-8440-5

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

CAUSAL THEORIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

INTRODUCTION

Theories of causality obtained great development during Medieval time. Aristotelian texts had been assimilated and debated by Medieval thinkers. Causal interactions became obvious not only for perceived objects that have form and matter but also for unperceived and invisible objects responsible for human behavior such as Will, Intellect, Morality and Knowledge. Many of the discussions among medieval thinkers were proficient and became fundamental for further development of such sciences as psychology, ethics, ontology, teleology etc. Science composes of two aspects – Content and Process – and combine two schools of thought – rationalism and empiricism. Empiricism focuses on «Content» which is the facts and relationships observed from reality or natural world. In order to have the «Content», science use inductive methods or «induction» when we derive conclusions from observation of past and present events. With the purpose to build a theory based on empirical observation, Science use logic and reasoning that integrated into «Process» or deductive method when obtained facts become subject of analysis including, in general, mathematical or any qualitative method. As we know, logic and reasoning are components of Rationalism. Hence, Science uses both Empiricism and Rationalism with the goal to uncover causes or causal relationships. Social Science studies people and their interactions within group-settings. Social science aimed at explanation, prediction and control over human behavior through investigation and analysis with the help to create secure, peaceful and flourishing social environment. The main object of studying in Social Sciences is human beings. The word «social» is derived from Latin word «socius» meaning «an associate, an ally companion, a business partner or comrade»1.

CAUSATION

Causal relationships are based on a distinction between two events – cause and effect, when the presence of one (the cause) is supposed to bring about or produce a presence of another (the effect). There are two attempts to explain the notion of causation – in terms of constant conjunction and in terms of counterfactuals.

Counterfactuals account is considered to be the strongest conception of causation. That is, the same outcome is invariably produced as an effect when the same cause occurs («same cause, same effect»). Therefore, if the outcome is known, then the cause could be determined. So, for example, falling a temperature below 00C caused freezing the water in the pond. Otherwise, counter to fact, if the water in the pond does not freeze, the temperature would not have fallen below 00C.

Constant conjunction states that the same outcome will occur as an effect just if all events of the first kind are constantly conjoined with events of the second. So, for example, falling a temperature below 00C caused freezing the water in the pond because every event of the first kind – falling a temperature below 00C – is accompanied by the same outcome – freezing the water in the pond.

The account in terms of constant conjunction is weaker than the counterfactual account due to it is not allways allows that all causes determine their effect. For example, every day running caused Laura to become slim. Counterfactual account explains certainly that everyday running did cause Laura to become slim. For if, counter to fact, Laura had not run, then she would not become slim. In contrast, constant conjunction account explains wrongly that every day running did not cause Laura to become slim because running is not constantly conjoined with becoming slim.

CAUSAL THEORIES IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

Aristotle distinguished four kinds of causation – material, formal, efficient and final. The first two could be taken as «an explanation in general». Efficient causes are what we would now simply call «causes». Final causes are disputable. According to rationalists, rational agents act to perform their end, and it became clear that causality of rationally pursued goal could be explained by efficient causality. However, Aristotle argued that not all natural processes can be explained by final causality only, and hence, final causality cannot be reduced to efficient causality. Ethics, from the Aristotle’s point of view is an attempt to achieve our highest good. He considered that our desires and aspirations should have response. What is differing us from animals is such a trait of character that we can regulate our desires. Insofar people are rational creatures, they can find balance between two excessive. For example, when we are trying to be temperate in excessive way we are said to be intemperate, while we are trying to develop it in a deficient way we are said to be insensible, but as far as we have REASON (or in GREEK: Ergon), we can choose the mean between extremes. So, Aristotle’s answer to What is Good? – is a reason which is a function of man. «ETHICS» emerges from an Ancient Greek term «Ethos» meaning HABIT. Habit of choosing wisely might be adopted by ethical individual in long ongoing process. Afterwards, making that choice, he or she implements his (or her) decision and make it real. The idea of Aristotle is that people should institutionalize Law, and education of children should be provided by State, not by private entities. Process of Institutionalization is the process that repeated over generations and time and transcends individuals.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «Литрес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на Литрес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

1

IR-PA551 – Philosophical and Epistemological Foundations of the Socal Sciences. Lectures’ notes.