Topic XVIII. Singular vs. General Causation

  • OVERVIEW

    • Distinguishing singular causation (A caused B) from general causation (X tends to cause Y).
    • It is often important to distinguish claims of singular causation, where A caused B, from claims of general causation, where variable X tends to affect variable Y. RCTs can only provide evidence of general causation, which might inform our understanding of particular instances of singular causation but cannot allow us to conclude causality with certainty. Both general and singular causation are subjects of scientific investigation. For example, whether Zika causes microencephalitis is a question of general causation, while whether an asteroid caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs is a question of singular causation. We also distinguish productive vs. dependent causation, and its implications for responsibility in legal and moral dilemmas like the Trolley Problem.
    • Defining causal relationships using "variables" and "interventions." How we say that this particular thing caused that particular thing. Connections with the Trolley Problem and legal responsibility. Causal relations in observational sciences (e.g., paleontology, cosmology) where experiments are not generally possible. 
    • Addressing the Question:How do we find out how things work?
      • Singular vs. General Causation
      • Productive vs. Dependent Causation

  • TOPIC RESOURCES

  • EXAMPLES

  • LEARNING GOALS

    • A. ATTITUDES
    • B. CONCEPT ACQUISITION
      • Multiple Causation: Any given effect may be brought about by a complex combination of many causes (which may interact with each other), with varying degrees of influence on the outcome. (see Topic XIII).  
      • Singular Causation: A causal relation between specific events — i.e., Event A caused Event B.  
      • General Causation: A causal relation between variables — i.e., X causes Y.  
      • Causation as Production: There is a spatiotemporally connected series of causal connections between two events or event types (i.e., the kind of causation people have in mind when they say there is no action at a distance; e.g., commission).  
      • Causation as Dependence: If X hadn’t happened, Y would not have happened (counterfactual dependence, e.g. omission, double prevention [prevention of a prevention]). 
      • Decision-making involves not only assessment of the outcome, but also the agent’s causal role in the production of the outcome (i.e., omission vs. commission, e.g. trolley dilemma).  
    • C. CONCEPT APPLICATION

  • CLASS ELEMENTS

    • Suggested Readings & Reading Questions
      • No Reading
    • Clicker Questions
      • After a pilot study in which we gave Vertuzi to 100 patients and found 72 of them recovered, we repeat the trial with 100,000 patients, and this time we find that over 82,000 of them recover.
        • A. Give no information about the presence or absence of a causal link
        • B. Establish that the treatment makes no difference
        • C. Tentatively confirm the efficacy of the treatment, though more evidence may be needed
        • D. Demonstrate conclusively the existence of a link
      • We are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are assessed for depends on factors under our control. Two people ought not to be morally assessed differently if the only other differences between them are due to factors beyond their control.
        • A. Agree
        • B. Disagree
      • X causes Y implies that ‘If there was an intervention on X, there would have been a difference to whether Y happened’
        • A. Yes
        • B. No
    • Discussion Questions
    • Practice Problems
      • For each of the following, say whether it is a case of singular causation or general causation; and productive causation or dependent causation; or if there is no causal link. A child is in the street, and a car is coming.
        • A dog jumps into the street and pushes the child out of the way of the car. The child is unhurt, but the dog is killed.
          • A. Car comes --> Dog dies. Singular, Productive
          • B. Child runs --> Dog dies. Singular, Dependent
          • C. Car comes --> Child survives. No causal link
        • Working dogs are very helpful to humans. Police dogs sniff bombs and drugs, seeing eye dogs help blind humans get around, and herding dogs keep sheep or goats from wandering off or getting eaten. During the recent fires in Santa Rosa, a Great Pyrenees called Odin refused to leave his seven goats to get into the car when the fires were coming. His human family had to leave him behind, sure that he and his goats would perish. When they returned, their home and the land around it were in ashes. But Odin came running up. His paws were burnt, but he had not lost a single goat. Somehow two fawns had joined his herd, and he was protecting them, too. News Story
          • A. Herding dogs --> Safety of goats. General, Productive
          • B. Santa Rosa Fires --> Fawns join Odin's flock. Singular, Dependent.
          • C. Fire --> Getting burnt. General, Productive.
          • D. Santa Rosa fires --> Odin's paws burnt. Singular, Productive.
    • Class Exercises
      • Online exercise: Causality Lab
      • Discuss sand resonance demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w&t=70s
  • Data Science Applications
    • ?? philosophical underpinnings ???