The Nature of Causation: The Necessary Connection Analysis

In this third lecture in this series on the nature of causation, Marianne Talbot discusses the necessary connection analysis of causation.
We have causal theories of reference, perception, knowledge, content and numerous other things. If it were to turn out that causation doesn’t exist, we would be in serious trouble! Causation is so important in fact that it has been said that: “With regard to our total conceptual apparatus, causation is the centre of the centre”, and it has been called ‘the cement of the universe’. In these lectures you will be introduced to the most influential theories of causation, the motivations for them and arguments behind them, and the problems they face.
This is from a six-part lecture series on the nature of causation given at Oxford in 2016.
#Philosophy #Hume #Causation

[@ionutandrasesc2376]

This channel is fantastic. All this people with their views are here explained. Perfect. Better then a colledge education. Ill watch everything here for next few years.

[@RafaelCouto]

Amazing class, thx a lot Marianne. Such a hard topic and you were able to deliver it in a way it just felt easy to understand.

[@ellengray8293]

This lecture is fantastic! It's the best analysis of Hume's necessary connection and current theories I have found. Thank you.

[@careneh33]

38:29 _"a theory is constructed in order to explain certain observations"_ as a scientist I would call this a classical misconception which leads to a lot of confusion and mistaken conclusions. A scientific theory is constructed to model observations (given some current state) and must consistently predict such observations too. While we use the word "explanation" colloquially, for example we refer to the explanatory power of a model or theory, a theory _is_ never an explanation, it is "just" a descriptive model.

[@TravelingPhilosopher]

She is coming from the perspective of philosophy of science. The theory has certain philosophical assumptions through which the observation is seen. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they understand the philosophical assumptions and constructs by which philosophers understand and analyze things.

[@careneh33]

@@TravelingPhilosopher right, I could not agree more, _philosophy of_ science has often nothing to do with _actual_ science. Of course, there are notable exceptions, out of my head the works of Karl Popper come in mind.

[@luzhang998]

Are there lectures 4, 5, and 6 in this series? Thanks!

[@ionutandrasesc2376]

Lookup playlist section here on the channel, and then there is a playlist with 4 videos all about causation

[@luzhang998]

Thank you so much! Lovely!

[@stephenlawrence4821]

I think the key to alot of this is that every time we do "the same" experiment there are differences. So I believe in physical necessity. But obviously I don't believe that every time I flick the switch on the kettle, the water will boil. I just believe that if it doesn't that is also of physical necessity. The point is the physical necessity is in the actual circumstances. Not across a range of slightly different circumstances. Surely that clears up an obvious confusion about physical necessity.

[@stephenlawrence4821]

Seems to me that necessary connections are about the rules the unuverse follows. But these aren't causal rules. Just like 2+2=4 isn't a causal rule. So I don't think "causation is behind of all of this". What we're interested in is if B follows A in a range of similar circumstances. But that is just what happens to be the case applying the same rules, whatever they are in each specific instance. Deterministic chaos could reign, in which case we wouldn't find regularities and yet still the necessary connections would be there.

[@ionutandrasesc2376]

What else besides causality can be there when you remove humans which can introduce their own stream of causality? Take life out. What remains there besides causality?

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

Correlation is not a precondition for causation. That is modern physics, aka Quantum Mechanics.

[@KipIngram]

1:08:30 - Again, what do the people that say these things have to say about SCIENCE???? And how do they explain why science works?

[@notanemoprog]

What? @1:27:29 ?? "i mean there is some evidence that that under certain conditions some people can can mind read" No. No. No.

[@50195876]

What period and place in English history was it that gave us women that speak with this awful cadence such that their voice breaks on every third word? It is an extremely distracting and irritating habit.