Causal Reasoning Flashcards Preview

Logic > Causal Reasoning > Flashcards

Flashcards in Causal Reasoning Deck (19)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Define: causal reasoning.

A

Inductive reasoning in which some effect is inferred from what i assumed to be its cause, or some cause is inferred from what is assumed to be its effect.

2
Q

Define: necessary condition.

A

A circumstance (or set of circumstances) in whose absence a given event cannot occur.

3
Q

Define: sufficient condition.

A

A circumstance (or set of circumstances) whose presence ensures the occurrence of a given event.

Related: “cause” in the sense of “tending to play a causative role” and “cause” in the sense of “the one factor that was critical in the occurrence of some phenomenon.”

4
Q

Define: remote cause.

A

In any chain of causes and effects, an event distant from the effect for which explanation is sought. Contrasted with “proximate” cause.

5
Q

Define: proximate cause.

A

In any chain of causes and effects, the event nearest to the event whose explanation is sought. Contrasted with “remote” causes, which are more distant in the causal chain.

6
Q

Define: necessary and sufficient condition.

A

The conjunction of necessary conditions for the occurrence of a given event, this conjunction being all that is needed to ensure the occurrence of the event. It is the sense in which the word cause is used when inferences are drawn both from cause to effect and from effect to cause.

7
Q

We can infer effect from cause only when by cause if meant _____.

A

sufficient condition

8
Q

We can infer cause from effect only when by cause is meant _____.

A

necessary condition

9
Q

When inferences are drawn both from cause to effect and effect to cause, the word cause must be used in the sense of ______.

A

necessary and sufficient condition

10
Q

Define: causal law.

A

Descriptive laws asserting a necessary connection between events of two kinds, of which one is the cause and the other is the effect.

11
Q

Define: inductive generalization.

A

The process of arriving at universal propositions from particular facts of experience, relying upon the principle of induction.

12
Q

Define: induction by simple enumeration.

A

A type of inductive generalization in which the premises are instances where phenomena of two kinds repeatedly accompany one another in certain circumstances, from which it is concluded that phenomena of those two kinds always accompany one another in such circumstances.

13
Q

Define: Mill’s methods.

A

The five patterns of inductive inference, analyzed and formulated by John Stuart Mill, with which hypotheses are confirmed or disconfirmed.

14
Q

What are Mill’s five methods of inductive inference?

A
  1. the method of agreement
  2. the method of difference
  3. the joint method of agreement and difference
  4. the method of residues
  5. the method of concomitant variation
15
Q

Define: method of agreement.

A

A pattern of inductive inference in which it is concluded that, if two or more instances of a given phenomenon have only one circumstance in common, that one common circumstance is the cause (or effect) of the phenomenon.

16
Q

Define: method of difference.

A

A pattern of inductive inference in which, when cases in which a given phenomenon occurs differ in only one circumstance from cases in which the phenomenon does not occur, that circumstance is inferred to be causally connected to the phenomenon.

17
Q

Define: the joint method of agreement and difference.

A

A pattern of inductive inference in which the method of agreement and the method of difference are used in combination to give the conclusion a higher degree of probability.

18
Q

Define: the method of residues.

A

A pattern of inductive inference in which, when some portions of a given phenomenon are known to be the effects of certain identified antecedents, we conclude that the remaining portion of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents.

19
Q

Define: the method of concomitant variation.

A

A pattern of inductive inference in which it is concluded that, when one phenomenon varies consistently with some other phenomenon in some manner, there is some causal relation between the two phenomena.