CAUSAL argumentation
Causal argumentation establishes the existence of a causal relationship, whereas cause-to-effect or effect-to-cause arguments assumes the existence of a causal relationship.
1. Questions about causality
Causal argumentation occurs when a causal relationship is at issue. For example, we observe that (1) the use of pesticides is increasing, and (2) bees are disappearing. Is there a causal connection between these two facts? Are the following statements true?
The use of pesticides is causing bees to disappear.
Pesticides are used and bees disappear! (causal reading of the coordinated construction)
There may be disagreement about this type of conclusion, even if there is agreement about the facts under consideration:
We use pesticides and the bees disappear, that’s true. But…
The causal inquiry begins with a salient fact, such as “the bees are disappearing,” “the climate seems to be changing”, and we don’t understand why. . Generally, several facts can be evoked as possible causes, and possible explanations of the phenomenon. This creates a stasis of causality, expressed by the confrontation of these hypotheses, for example in the case of climate change, taken as a fact:
S1: — the increase in solar activity causes the climate change.
S2: — the increass in greenhouse gas emissions causes climate change.
These explanatory causes are themselves integrated into broader theories of the climatic equilibrium of the terrestrial globe. Broad conceptions of the physical and social world are confronted through such local causal affirmations.
Affirmations of causal relationships are therefore based on the elaboration of crucial experiments and the retrieval of key observations. Causes are determined according to the methodology relevant to the given domain.
Ordinary causal experimentation also involves observation and experience. For example, if I have a mild allergic reaction, I need to consider what the possible allergens might be which have caused it. I might observe that yesterday I went to the swimming pool and ate strawberries. There are two possible allergens, strawberries or chemicals used in the pool. I can do the following checks, eat strawberries without going swimming, and go swimming without eating strawberries. If I’m unlucky, I’ll have to investigate further and perhaps see a specialist, who will take a systematic approach. If I’m lucky, however, I’ll have a (controlled) mild allergic reaction in one case and not in the other, and I’ll be able to identify the allergen. Since the allergic reaction is undesirable, I pragmatically reason that, given the negative consequence, I will change my behavior, and thus eliminate the cause.
2. Refuting causal claims
The correct establishment of causal relationships is a fundamental requirement, both in science and in ordinary life. The priority given to the correct determination of causal relations is the foundation of Aristotelian thought. The “false cause” fallacy is committed when a causal relationship is claimed between two phenomena that in fact have no causal relationship between them. This fallacy is sometimes referred to by its Latin name non-causa pro causa, “‘non-cause’ taken for a cause”, see Fallacious (2).
The positive existence of a causal relationship is difficult to establish. Sometimes it can only be considered as the residual explanation that remains when all other possibilities have been discarded.
To confirm that there is a causal relationship between two facts, it is necessary to answer a number of standard objections to the existence of a causal relationship.
2.1 The claimed effect does not exist
The causal claim “the use of pesticides is the cause of the disappearance of the bees” is refuted by showing that although the bees have disappeared from a particular area, there are still as many bees as before when a larger, more general area is considered. The bees have not disappeared, they have simply migrated.
The facts must be confirmed, before looking for and discussing their causes. This methodological rule is well illustrated by the famous case of the golden tooth, described by Fontenelle.
Let us be well assured of the matter of fact, before we trouble our selves with inquiring into the cause. It is true, that this method is too slow for the greatest part of mankind, who run naturally to the cause, and pass over the truth of the matter of fact; but for my part, I will not be so ridiculous as to find out a cause for what is not.
This kind of misfortune happened so pleasantly, at the end of the last age, to some learned Germans, that I cannot forbear speaking of it. “In the year 1593, there was a report that the teeth of a child of Silesia of seven years old dropped out, and that one of gold came in the place of one of his great teeth. Horstius, a profesor of physic in the university of Helmstad, wrote in the year 1595, the history of this tooth, and pretended that it was partly natural and partly miraculous, and that it was sent from God to this child, to comfort the Christians who were then afflicted by the Turks.” Now fancy to your self what a consolation this was, and what this tooth could signify, either to the Christians or the Turks. In the same year, (that this tooth of gold might not want for historians) one Rullandus wrote the history of it: two years after, Ingolsteterus, another learned man, wrote against the opinion of Rullandus concerning this golden tooth; and Rullandus presently makes a fine learned reply. Libavius, another great man, collected all that had been said of this tooth, to which he added his own opinion. After all, there wanted nothing to so many famous works, but the truth of its being a tooth of gold. When a Goldsmith had examined it, he found that it was only a leaf of gold laid on the tooth with a great deal of art. Thus they first compiled books, and then they consulted the goldsmith.
Nothing is more natural than to do the same thing in all other cases. And I am not so much convinced of our ignorance, by things that are, and of which the reasons are unknown, as by those which are not, and for which we yet find out reasons. That is to say, as we want those principles that lead us to the truth, so we have others means that not only do we not have the principles that lead to truth, but we have others which are exceeding well with that which is false.
Bernard Le Bouyer of Fontenelle, The History of the Oracles [1686][1], original translation text.
2.2 The effect exists independently of the alleged cause
The determining cause has a consistent effect. If C is the cause of E, we cannot have C without E. When a metal is heated, it necessarily expands. It follows that a causal claim can be refuted by showing that the effect persists in the absence of the cause. To return to the example above, if it can be shown that bees also disappear from areas where pesticides are not used, then pesticides cannot be considered to be responsible for the decline in bee population.
2.3 There is no causality but concomitance
In this case, A both regularly accompanies and precedes B without being the cause of B. The rooster regularly sings before dawn, but it is not the cause of the sunrise. Taking an antibiotic may be accompanied by a feeling of exhaustion, but the cause of this exhaustion is not the antibiotic but the infection it is fighting. The general principle for testing the existence of a causal relationship is to eliminate the agent that is the suspected cause; if the so-called effect is still there, there is no causal relationship between the two facts. For example, if the so-called effect is still there, there is no causal link between the two facts. If the rooster is eliminated, for example, the sun still rises; if we do not take antibiotics, we will still be exhausted and perhaps even more so.
The use of pesticides goes hand in hand with the disappearance of bees; but in areas where pesticides are no longer used, the number of bees continues to decline at the same rate. The cause is sought elsewhere: perhaps climate change is to blame?
Such false causal attributions are well identified in the ancient theory of fallacies, which denotes them by two Latin expressions:
— Antibiotic fallacy: cum hoc, ergo propter hoc: — “with A, therefore because of A”.
A accompanies B, therefore A is cause of B.
— Rooster’s fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc — “after A, therefore because of A”.
B occurs after A, so A is cause of B.
2.4 Another cause can have the same effect
You may be tired because you are physically exhausted, because you have an infection, or because you are depressed.
2.5 Not one, but several causes: complex causality
It may be necessary for several causes to exist together in order to produce an effect. This is the case with economic crises, or lung cancer.
Identifying the causes determines the responsibility of the human agents who set the causal machinery in motion. When causality is complex, it is possible for the defendants to argue that they are responsible for only one causal factor, which alone would not alone have caused the problem in question. A person dies after being arrested. The autopsy shows that this person suffered from a weak heart:
Lawyer: — If the police had treated him gently, he would not have died. The police are responsible.
Police: — If he had not been sick before, he would not have died. The police are not responsible.
In cases of severe pollution, the authorities apologize to the public: « People without respiratory problems have no problem ».
2.6 The effect feeds the cause
Feedback is a kind of causal cycle: nuclear fusion raises the temperature and the rise in temperature accelerates fusion. In the social field, this kind of mechanism is invoked to reject a particular measure, on the grounds that it will not alleviate the problem in question, but rather aggravate it:
L1: — To fight the recession, public services must be strengthened / reduced.
L2: — But the increasing / reducing public services will make the recession worse.
You can always argue against a measure by claiming that it will have certain undesirable consequences that outweigh any possible advantage, see. Pragmatic argument. In the example above, the objection is radical, because the perverse effect is not some side effect, that the author of the proposition has not yet noticed, but exactly the opposite of the intended effect. This is a case of pure and simple inversion of causality (see infra), which is common in polemical discourse.
2.7 Self-fulfilling prophecies
In the case of self-fulfilling prophecies, the announcement of an event is the cause of the event:
S1_1: — In truth, I tell you: there will be a shortage of food!
So people run to the stores and there is a shortage of food
S1_2: — See, I told you so!
S2: — If you hadn’t panicked the people, there wouldn’t have been a shortage.
Self-fulfilling prophecies are close to manipulation:
We are going to war for sure, so we have to rearm and warn the population. … Now we are the strongest, and our people are behind us. We can wage war.
2.8 Reversal of cause and effect
Reversing cause and effect is a common form of refutation in ordinary argumentation. Two facts A and B vary simultaneously. To account for this concurrence, some claim that there is a causal connection from A to B, while others claim a connection from B to A. Are we crying because we are sad? Or are we sad because we are crying? Does aggression cause fear? Or does fear cause agression?
L1: — I am afraid of dogs, they can attack and bite!
L2: — No, they attack because they see that you’re afraid.
L1: — OK, I’m aggressive, that’s because they chase me!
L2: — No, they’re chasing you because you’re aggressive.
It is said that single people are more likely to commit suicide than people with a partner. We might ask, then, whether single people have such problems because they are single, or whether they are single because they have such problems? This form of refutation by permutation of the cause and effect is simple and radical. It is worth noting, however, that it is not always possible to apply this process, as seen above, in the case of bees and pesticides.
This causal shift is particularly popular in ordinary causal reasoning. This game of term permutation of terms illustrates the ubiquity of language-based argumentation schemes. It is easier and more exciting to argue that politics determines morality or that morality determines politics, than to argue that there is no or a very complex connection between morality and politics, see. Converse.
2.9 Causality, subjectivity, responsibility
There is no isolated cause, but a causal chain: the expression of causality as “A is the cause of B” is a potentially misleading simplification. Every cause is itself caused, except God, who is said to be his own cause and the cause of all that follows. The phenomenon called a the cause can itself be constructed as the effect of a deeper cause, and its effects as new causes of new effects. We are therefore not dealing with a connection between two concepts, but with a real causal chain of potentially infinite length.
Consider the deadly events that took place in Sheffield on Sunday, April 16, 1988. They were widely reported and commented upon in the French press. The following day, the front page of L’Équipe (a sports newspaper) read as follows:
The horror!
Eighty-four people were killed on Saturday in the Sheffield stadium, where the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham was being played.
Typically, this kind of event creates anxiety which in turn stimulates the search for causal explanations. Readers will ask themselves “Why? How can this be possible?” On the same day, the headlines in Le Figaro newspaper (news and opinions) were:
Football: Why so many dead?
Four explanations for the tragedy:
-
- The madness of the fans • The negligence of the police
- The age of the stadium • Inadequate emergency services
The newspaper’s answer suggest a broad causality for the first question, and to a narrow one for the others. On the same day, the newspaper Libération (news and opinions) asserts a broad causality:
94 dead in Sheffield stadium
Deadly stadium
Crushed to death by the crowd , the victims who had come to watch the football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest paid a dramatic tribute to the most popular sport in Thatcher’s Britain.
Still the same day, L’Humanité newspaper (news and opinions) combines local concerns to the so-called deeper causes:
After the drama of Sheffield, Liverpool in mourning
The final stage of the horror
90 dead and at least 170 injured, that is the terrible toll of the Hillsborough disaster. The vast majority of the victims were children and young people from working class backgrounds who had come to support their teams. The age of the stadium and its segregating character, and the power of money in the world of football are now on trial. The destruction of industry and the resulting disorganization of leisure activities have all contributed to the transformation of sport into a high-risk activity
The investigation of the causal chain mobilizes specialists in each of these areas of responsibility. Police officers and judges investigate narrow causalities, while sociologists, economists, politicians and historians discuss long-term causalities and responsibilities. In short, what is the cause? The fragility of the victims’ rib cage, the poor quality of care for the victims, the late response of the emergency services, the incompetence of the police, the poor standard of the stadium, the financial greed of the organizers, the behavior of the fans, unemployment, social exclusion, the capitalist system…? Assigning a cause means assigning responsibility and blame, and perhaps even shaming the parties involved. This case shows that discursive causality is a discursive object.
Moreover, the causal chains intermingle and combine to form a “web of causes”. Argumentation is based on this fabric, as “causal threads” are picked up and cut at a given point. This point determines the nature of the chosen cause associated with the salient problematic event considered as an “effect”. The selection of a cause, correlatively, determines the responsible agent, person or institution, to be blamed or praised. The whole process depends on the interests and goals of the arguing party. The speaker fully projects his own subjectivity onto the causal chain he has chosen, and onto the cause he or she has isolated. It would therefore be quite illusory to think that ordinary arguments based on causal links are ipso facto more rigorous and less subjective than arguments based on, say, analogy.
[1] Bernard Le Bouyer of Fontenelle, The History of the Oracles. Glasgow: R. Urie, 1753. P. 14-15.