causation造句

Coincidence is not causation.

Of course correlation is not causation.

In legal discourse causation is particularly important.

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.

But if we take David Hume's view of causation then the position is very different.

The paradigm is sort of a standard thought about efficient causation is a mechanical contact.

When necessary, the expert will be assigned to determine the causation.

But it remains to be that our evidence for causation is always a correlation.

Seems very hard to understand; now this is a real problem for Descartes because Descartes thinks causation is ultimately intelligible.

Much of the second half is taken up with the devilishly tricky business of trying to extract causation from correlation.

And our understanding of causation is not really based on intelligibility, its based on observation of uniformity.

But while I'm convinced of the correlation in this study, I'm just not convinced of the causation.

So his theory of causation was skewed by circumstance, a kin to watching a shipwreck and concluding that the natural and universal state of man is drowning.

Actually if you take a Humean view of causation what looks like a really serious problem for Descartes actually goes away.

True, correlation doesn't imply causation, but correlation is often the first step to finding causes, so such studies are still valuable.

Though this may be true, it is unlikely that any reasonably successful theory of causation would support the Cartesian distinction between two different kinds of substance, mind and matter.

We think that the only way we can learn about causation is from past experience and we want to know what ground we have for extrapolating from past experience to the future.

But let's suppose the correlations are due to causation: good parenting makes good kids, and day-care makes for very slightly smarter, but also slightly less well-behaved kids.