causation造句怎麼寫

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Of course correlation is not causation.

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.

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

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

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.

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.

In legal discourse causation is particularly important.

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

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

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

Coincidence is not causation.

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