This preview has intentionally blurred parts. Sign up to view the full document

View Full Document

Unformatted Document Excerpt

Chapter 11 Overview Two kinds of explanation are addressed in Chapter 11: physical causal and behavioral causal. When physical phenomena need explaining, the hypothetical causes are drawn from a physical background, e.g. "The reason the paper is on the lawn is because the wind blew it there." When behavioral phenomena need explaining, the hypothetical causes are drawn from a psychological background, e.g. "The reason she went to the Dairy Barn was because she desired ice cream." An explanation's adequacy is relative to what one is looking for. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be unnecessarily complicated, circular, inconsistent, incompatible with fact or theory, vague, or untestable in principle. I t shouldn't generate meaningless predictions, false predictions, or no predictions at all. The general strategy for forming causal hypotheses (or educated guesses) is called "inference to the best explanation." Observing an association, or co-variation, between two events can serve as a beginning. Inferring a causal connection, however, requires rigorous application of the Methods of Agreement and Difference while being guided by background knowledge of causal mechanisms. Finding a hypothesis that adequately explains the facts can be like diagnosing a disease or solving a crime. The Best Diagnosis Method gathers as many "symptoms" as possible, t ries to sift out the ir relevant ones, and tries to find the strongest connections. Controlled cause-to-effect experiments are the most direct way of confirming a causal hypothesis. By repeating an experiment and systematically eliminating other possible causes and getting the same effect, the hypothesis becomes confirmed. Indirect methods of testing causal hypotheses are more appropriate for human populations, for practical and ethical reasons. These studies compare a group of people who exhibit the effect under investigation with a control group who do not have it. Animal experiments are another way to avoid testing humans directly. The results may be applied to humans by analogical reasoning. There are many, and varied, ways of making mistakes in causal reasoning. Some of the most prominent involve believing there is a causal connection between A and B when actually the relationship is: coincidental, a result of a third underlying cause, or reversed. The law relies on establishing a causal relationship between an action and the resulting harm. Whether or not someone is held liable for something depends on whether or not the harm can be traced back to his/her action as the proximate cause. 1. Explanations are different than arguments. There are two kinds of explanations: physical causal and behavioral causal. a. You use arguments to support a statement but explanations to elucidate the reasons why some event happened. i. When we give a reason for doing something, we are presenting an argument for doing it. ... View Full Document

End of Preview

Sign up now to access the rest of the document