CAUSALITY

1. The expression of causality

The concept of cause is central to both everyday and scientific argument. It is regarded as a primitive, intuitively clear concept. This means that ordinary language defines cause only in terms that are equally complex.

Let us consider some ways of referring to and thinking about causal connections and processes:

— The cause explains, accounts for its effect; it gives the why, the reason for things. The effect is understood when its cause is known.

— The cause of something is its principle; its origin, its basis, its reason, its occasion. The cause is a motor, that triggers, sets in motion a series of effects.

— Human beings act as causes; they are agents, makers; authors, creators, inspirers, instigators, promoters, producers…; their aims, purposes, intentions, motives and motivations… are considered as potential causes. Their incitements, inducements, instigations, are second level causes.

— Metaphorically, the cause is thought of as a spark, a ferment, a germ; a root, a seed; a source, a spring. Their causes are the mothers of things as they are.

In addition to the specific verbs corresponding to the preceding nouns, different kinds of causal relations are associated with very general verbs such as to bring about, to give rise to, to make, to procure, to lift…

Like the logical relation of implication, the causal relation can be associated with clauses expressed by conjunctions or adverbs:

Since, because …; as soon as …; so … ; when …; if … then …

These terms and constructions can indicate to some kind of causal relationship, and can therefore be considered as causal indicators of some kind, bearing in mind that they can also express other functional relationships

Like analogical relations, causal relations can do without causal indicators. A spontaneous “causal impulse” always suggests a causal relationship behind a purely temporal sequence, or concurrence (see infra).

2. Temporal, causal, logical, sequences

The temporal sequence is articulated by three moments: before … / during … / after …  In the temporal world, events coexist (are simultaneous) or follow one another (precede / follow); there is no “temporal loop”.

The causal sequence: In the material world, apart from feedback loops, the cause precedes its effect or consequence.

The logical implication: In the logical world, the antecedent is to the left of the logical connective ‘→’ and the consequent, or logical consequence, is to the right.
See Logical Connective (Implication); Deduction.
Logical relations develop the consequences of hypotheses or postulates. If the length of the side of a square is doubled, its area is multiplied by four: this result is a consequence linked to a cause which is a mathematical reason.

In natural language, semantic implications are based on the linguistic content of the word, here the word “birth”.

Mind your words, you speak of the birth of the gods, are you saying that the gods did not exist at one time?

3. Argumentation dealing with causality

3.1 When causality is at the focus of the argument

It is not necessary for argumentative analysis, and in practice would be a never-ending task, to try to identify and reconstruct all the multi-level, potential causal relations in an argumentative text.
The key methodological point is that, in order to be of interest for argumentative analysis, the causal relationship must be the focus of an argumentative question or sub-question. This is an adaptation of Quintilian’s principle: « as soon as a disagreement emerges, the question arises », see Stasis. If the disagreement is about a causal relationship, this relationship comes to the fore, is dealt with in the lines of argument developed by the participants, etc., and as such, become an object for argumentative analysis.

3.2 Argumentation establishing / exploiting a causal relationship

We will distinguish between two types of argumentation:
— Argumentation that establishes or denies the existence of a causal relationship between two facts or events. The existence or non-existence of a causal relationship is the conclusion of the argument.

— Argumentation that exploits a previously established causal relationship. The argument presupposes the existence of the causal relationship.

(i) Cause-effect argumentation establishes a causal relationship between two facts and eliminates “false causes”.

(ii) Several types of argument exploit a previously established causal relationship. In this second case, we distinguish between:

— Cause-to-effect argumentation, going forward from cause to effect. A fact-argument considered to be a cause, is claimed to have such an effect.

— Effect-to-cause argumentation, going backward from effect to cause. A fact to which a status of effect is ascribed, is claimed to have such a cause, see Abduction.

— Pragmatic argumentation. In order to decide about a practical measure, the measure is assimilated to a cause, which will have such and such positive or negative effects and the assessment is reported to the alleged cause.

— Argumentation based on motives aligns the relationship between a motive to do something and the corresponding action with the cause-effect relationship.

— A priori and a posteriori arguments, propter quid and quia arguments make use of causal and logical connections.

 

---