Topics Science

Question How reasonable is the way we speak about causality? Say a person catches a cold. The cause of that cold might be said to be the effect of the cold virus; or it might be said to be the contraction of the cold; or the failure to prevent the contraction of the cold; or the presence of the virus or of the victim wherever it was contracter; or whatever brought either of them to that place; etc. For most things (leaving aside the thorny issue of free will), things that happen are caused by other things. So when we speak of causality, does it make any sense to say that some causes caused whatever we're talking about, and to ignore other, more proximal or more distal causes?

Accepted:
April 6, 2011

Comments

Usually when we ask a question about what caused something, we are engaged in trying to repeat or avoid the same situation, or trying to assign blame and responsibility. So although events have many causes, only a few or one of them may be relevant in a particular context. If I disregard instructions to quarantine myself and infect you with the TB bacillus, then one of the things we might say is that the cause of your getting TB is my irresponsibility. (It would not be helpful to say that the cause of your getting TB was the TB bacillus, or even that the cause was my cough.)