理解原因和结果
在发现真理，需要明确因果关系时，一些最困难的挑战就会出现了。不幸的是，在这些情况下错误很常见。首先是在没有的地方发现因果关系。另一个是只看到简单和明显的因果关系，忽视了复杂或者微妙的因果关系。第三个是相信原因只和物质力量有关，和人类的行为无关。要避免这些困惑，必须理解下面4个事实：
1.一件事情可以在另一件事情前发生，但是并不是它的发生原因。有些人相信当一件事情在另一件事情前发生，它一定是这件事情的原因。大多数的迷信就是植根于这个理念的。比如，相信打破镜子，交叉路口遇到黑猫，或者在梯子下行走会导致厄运。你不是迷信才会犯这个错误。你可能认为因为昨天学生们漫不经心，所以教授没有事先声明就在今天安排了一个测试，其实他可能在学期开始就计划好了。或者你相信股票市场下跌时因为新的总统上任了，其实还有其他的一些因素也促进了这次下跌。
认为前面发生的事情必然导致后面事情发生的思考方式的问题是忽视了巧合的可能性，这种可能性是“相关性不能证明因果关系”原则的基础，为了确定因果关系，有必要排除巧合，或者至少提出一个针对巧合有说服力的案例。
2.不是所有的因果关系都是强制的或者必然的。术语“因果关系”通常和影响物质世界的物理行为相关，比如，闪电击中房子，房子着火燃烧。或者花瓶不小心掉在窗户外落到地面上摔碎了。或者小车没有按照弯道行驶，冲出公路，撞在树上。在这些案例中，科学规律或定律发生作用（燃烧、重力、惯性），结局是不可避免的或者至少是高度可预测的。
这种类型的因果关系是有效的，但是认为这是唯一的因果关系类型就错了。因果关系同样在非物质世界里存在，我们称为人类事务——更加特别的是在思考和感情过程。这种类型的因果关系和科学规律和定律没有任何关系（如果有关系的话），永远不是必然发生的，通常难以预测。如果我们要避免过于简化，我们需要这样定义因果关系，它应该覆盖科学领域和人类事务领域。
下面是这一点的注释说明，作为“原因”的最初定义，牛津英文词典是这样的：“能产生一个结果，导致了任何行为，现象或状况”。“产生”和“导致”的区别是我们在这里关注的。于是我们将因果关系定义为“一件事情影响另一件事情发生的现象”。影响可能是主要的或者次要的、直接或间接、在时间上或空间上临近或者遥远的。它可能还是不可抗拒的，比如前面提及的燃烧、重力、和惯性的例子；或者可以改变的，就像后面的父母教育或相似的例子。对于后者来讲，还有其他包含观念的事情中，影响（原因）不会强制结果发生，而是导致、鼓励、激励它发生。考虑下面的案例。
智力是由基因决定的观念让二十世纪初的教育者得出这样的结论，无法教会人们思考，所以就强调死记硬背的学习和扩大职业教育的课程。
人性本善，因此个人不需要为他们的坏行为负责的观念，要受到指责的是父母、老师、和社会，这还导致法官对罪犯更加仁慈。
某个种族或民族比其他的更加高级的观念，引发对周边国家的军事行动，歧视性的法律，奴役和种族灭绝。
“三十岁以上的人不值得信任”的观念在美国二十世纪六七十年代非常流行，因此年轻人对于父母、老师的建议以及过去积累下来的智慧嗤之以鼻。
感觉是行动的可靠指引的观念，让人们不再克制，而是随性而为。可以说，这样的想法导致了不文明事件、马路抢劫、虐待配偶件等社会问题的增加。
自尊是成功的先决条件的观念改变了传统自我提升的观念，产生了上百本聚焦于自我接纳上的书籍，让教育者们对于家庭作业、分数和纪律的看法上更加宽容。
在这些每一个案例中，一个观念影响了一个行动或者信念的产生，在这个意义上说，导致了它的发生。当专栏作家乔治威尔（George Will）遇到这样声明的时候，毫无疑问在他脑海中是有这样因果关系观点的。声明是“没有人会因为看到‘天生的杀手’或者听到‘黑帮说唱乐’而死亡”。威尔回应说，“没有人会因为阅读纳粹的反犹太人报纸《风暴》而死亡，但是它宣扬的文化却导致了600万犹太人死亡”。
原文：
Understanding Cause and Effect10
Some of the most difficult challenges in discovering truth occur in determining cause-and-effect relationships. Unfortunately, mistakes are common in such matters. One mistake is to see cause-and-effect CHAPTER 3 What Is Truth? 39 relationships where there are none. Another is to see only the simple and obvious cause-and-effect relationships and miss the complex or subtle ones. A third is to believe that causation is relevant only to material forces and is unrelated to human affairs. To avoid such confusion, four facts must be understood:
- One event can precede another without causing it. Some people believe that when one event precedes another, it must be the cause of the other. Most superstition is rooted in this notion. For example, breaking a mirror, crossing paths with a black cat, or walking under a ladder is believed to cause misfortune. You don’t have to be superstitious to make this mistake. You may believe that your professor gave an unannounced quiz today because students were inattentive the day before yesterday, whereas he may have planned it at the beginning of the semester. Or you may believe the stock market fell because a new president took office, when other factors might have prompted the decline.
The problem with believing that preceding events necessarily cause subsequent events is that such thinking overlooks the possibility of coincidence. This possibility is the basis of the principle that “correlation does not prove causation.” In order to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, it is necessary to rule out coincidence, or at least to make a persuasive case against it.
- Not all causation involves force or necessity. The term causation is commonly associated with a physical action affecting a material reality, such as, a lightning bolt striking a house and the house catching fire and burning. Or a flowerpot being accidentally dropped out a window and then falling to the ground and breaking. Or a car speeding, failing to negotiate a curve, careening off the highway, and crashing into a tree. In such cases a scientific principle or law applies (combustion, gravity, inertia), and the effect is inevitable or at least highly predictable.
That type of causation is valid, but it would be a mistake to think of it as the only type. Causation also occurs in the nonmaterial realities we call human affairs—more specifically, in the processes of emotion and thought. That type of causation has little, if anything, to do with scientific principles or laws, is almost never inevitable, and is often difficult to predict. If we are to avoid oversimplification, we need to define causation in a way that covers both the scientific realm and the realm of human affairs.
Here is a footnote for this: As its first definition of cause, the Oxford English Dictionary gives “that which produces an effect; that which gives rise to any action, phenomenon, or condition.” The distinction between “produces” and “gives rise to” is what we are referring to here. We will therefore define causation as the phenomenon of one thing influencing the occurrence of another. The influence may be major or minor, direct or indirect, proximate or remote in time or space. It may also be irresistible, as in the examples of combustion, gravity, and inertia mentioned previously; or resistible, as in following parental teaching or the example of one’s peers. In the latter case, and in other matters involving ideas, the influence (cause) does not force the effect to occur but instead invites, encourages, or inspires it. Consider these examples:
The idea that intelligence is genetically determined led early twentieth century educators to conclude that thinking cannot be taught, and thus to emphasize rote learning and expand vocational curriculums.
The idea that people are naturally good, and therefore not personally responsible for their bad deeds, has shifted blame to parents, teachers, and society, and caused judges to treat criminals more leniently.
The idea that one race or ethnic group is superior to another has led to military campaigns against neighboring countries, discriminatory laws, slavery, and genocide.
The idea that “no one over thirty can be trusted,” which was popular in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, led many young people to scorn both the advice of their parents and teachers and the accumulated wisdom of the past.
The idea that feelings are a reliable guide to behavior has led many people to set aside restraint and follow their impulses. This change has arguably led to an increase in incivility, road rage, and spouse abuse, among other social problems.
The idea that self-esteem is prerequisite to success changed the traditional idea of self-improvement, inspired hundreds of books focused on self-acceptance, and led educators to more indulgent views of homework, grading, and discipline.
In each of these examples, one idea influenced the occurrence of an action or belief and, in that sense, caused it. Columnist George Will no doubt had this view of causation in mind when he encountered the claim that “no one has ever dropped dead from viewing ‘Natural Born Killers,’ or listening to gangster rap records.” Will responded, “No one ever dropped dead reading ‘Der Sturmer,’ the Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper, but the culture it served caused six million Jews to drop dead.”11
网友评论