good move,
rosan,
it appropriately keeps our talking in the domain of language.
i would not want to substitute explanation for cause, though. we know of
causal explanations, functional explanations, structural explanations,
explanations invoking evolution, explanations in terms of synchronicity,
explanations that focus on the actions of a devine ruler or evil,
explanations in terms of intentions, explanations in terms using anything
that makes sense to you.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rosan Chow
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 4:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: causality and pluralism
Dear Jonas
could we forget about 'cause' (such a loaded word), but use 'explanation'
instead? (e.g. i learn that 'intention' is not a (efficient) cause of
action. 'intention' can, however, be an explanation for action). and
explanation rather than cause, seems to me, concerns design more. (e.g. if
we look at how user study is conducted, we might notice that design team is
more concerned with intentional explanation than with causes for user
action).
for your map of causes/explanations, i wonder whether mapping from
'determinism' to 'free will' to (i will add 'no explanaton') can be
accompanied by an extra dimension, namely from general to specific.
just a thought.
rosan
Wolfgang Jonas wrote:
Dear all, late in the debate, and running the risk to simplify things
that have already been discussed in a highly elaborate manner...
Nevertheless, what do you think of David Hume's concept of causality and its
usefulness in the design context? Probably difficult to accept for some: it
always requires an observer. Yet, in my view it provides a framework, which
comprises the entire (continuous?) spectrum from pure "determinism" (based
on 1st order observation, e.g. the motion of planets) to causation (by
"accident" or by human "intention", based on 2nd order observation; also
"accident" is an interpretation of an observation). The most important thing
for me: trying to clearly position the observations in the spectrum
mentioned (which requires a mapping of concepts of causality) and trying to
understand why someone (including yourself) asserts something.By the way: My
intention (as I interpret this intervention in the debate) is motivated in
my urge to relate things / concepts, to create systems of understanding (for
myself), to create some order in the chaos of languaging... The philosopher
who produced the most striking analysis of causality was David Hume. He
asserted that it was impossible to know that certain laws of cause and
effect always apply - no matter how many times one observe them occurring.
Just because the sun has risen every day since the begining of the Earth
does not mean that it will rise again tomorrow. However, it is impossible to
go about one's life without assuming such connections and the best that we
can do is to maintain an open mind and never presume that we know any laws
of causality for certain. This was used as an argument against metaphysics,
ideology and attempts to find theories for everything. A.J. Ayer claimed
that his law of verification was an application of Hume's teaching, yet it
was, in fact, exactly what Hume argued against - assuming that empirical
observation could lead to definite knowledge. Karl Popper clarified matters
with his law of falsification, which is more in line with Hume's teachings
that any new experience could disprove a law that had been previously
thought to be certain.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Hume Jonas
--
