Explanation and Causes: Lecture quiz (15/15) Flashcards
According to the Deductive-Nomological account of explanation, the occurrence of a phenomenon can be satisfactorily explained by demonstrating that (..1..), by showing that (..2..) (..3..) and (..4..)
circumstances, or initial conditions
laws, or law-like generalizations
it was expected to occur
it follows deductively from
- it was expected to occur
- it follows deductively from
- laws, or law-like generalizations
- circumstances, or initial conditions
An argument can be made that explanations should be asymmetric. If so, the Deductive-Nomological account of explanation is in trouble, since it is structurally symmetric. What does this imply? Mark all correct options.
A)
It implies that there are cases that satisfy the conditions of the Deductive-Nomological account, but intuitively do not constitute genuine explanations.
B)
It implies that there are cases that fail to satisfy the conditions of the Deductive-Nomological account, even though they intuitively seem to constitute genuine explanations.
C)
It implies that, on the account of the DN-model, it is sometimes possible to explain a phenomenon by pointing to its effects (in conjunction with relevant law-like generalities), rather than to its causes. This is quite counter-intuitive.
A) It implies that there are cases that satisfy the conditions of the Deductive-Nomological account, but intuitively do not constitute genuine explanations.
C) It implies that, on the account of the DN-model, it is sometimes possible to explain a phenomenon by pointing to its effects (in conjunction with relevant law-like generalities), rather than to its causes. This is quite counter-intuitive.
Use the options below to fill in premises and conclusion in order to get a sound but, in an obvious way, ‘causally irrelevant’ deductive inference, as discussed in the lecture. (Please assume that the options for premise 2 are all true).
A) Premise 1 (general claim)
B) Premise 2 (Initial condition)
C) Conclusion (explanandum)
Options:
1)
Jane is a billionaire that goes to gym
2)
Therefore, Jane is wealthy
3)
Every billionaire that goes to the gym is wealthy
A - 3
B - 1
C - 2
What is true about the problem of causal irrelevance? Mark all correct options.
A) The problem of causal irrelevance shows that certain accounts of explanation are not sufficient for all situations.
B) If an explanation is causally irrelevant, then its explanans doesn’t point out the difference-making causes.
C) If a DN explanation is causally irrelevant, then the deduction in the explanation is not valid.
D) The problem of causal irrelevance shows that certain accounts of explanation are not necessary for all situations.
A) The problem of causal irrelevance shows that certain accounts of explanation are not sufficient for all situations.
B) If an explanation is causally irrelevant, then its explanans doesn’t point out the difference-making causes.
Besides avoiding the problems outlined in the previous questions, what advantages do causal explanations have over Deductive-Nomological explanations? Mark the correct option.
A)
Causal explanations, but not DN-explanations, can provide us with an understanding of why a singular phenomenon occurred.
B)
Causal explanations are always easier to understand.
C)
Causal explanations, but not DN-explanations, can provide us with understanding of why a phenomenon occurred without making reference to any general, law-like regularities.
C) Causal explanations, but not DN-explanations, can provide us with understanding of why a phenomenon occurred without making reference to any general, law-like regularities.
Can you separate the different kinds of explanations? Some of the explanations below are DN explanations, while others are causal explanations but not DN explanations. Match each explanation below with the right type!
A)
DN explanation
B)
Causal, not DN explanation
1) Why did Mr Jones burn his hand? Water vaporizes at 100 °C. Water vapor (above 100 °C) causes burn injuries to unprotected human skin. Water vapor rises upwards in normal conditions. The water in the pot was boiling at 100 °C. Mr Jones held his unprotected hand over the pot. Therefore, Mr Jones burnt his hand.
2) Why did the rock roll into the lake rather than stopping? The rock had a round shape, the hill beside the lake was steep, the rock was pushed down the hill, and there were no obstructions on the rock’s trajectory. Therefore, the rock rolled into the lake.
3) Why does particle P have amount x of energy? The energy of a particle is equivalent to the product of its mass and the speed of light squared (C^2). P has mass y. x = y * C^2. Therefore, the energy of P is x.
4) Why did Mr Jones get away unharmed instead of burning his hand on the water vapor? Mr Jones saw that the water was boiling and put on protective gloves. Therefore, when Mr Jones held his hand over the boiling water the gloves protected his skin. Therefore, Mr Jones got away unharmed.
A - 1
B - 2
B - 4
A - 3
Is it problematic if an explanandum isn’t contrastive? Mark all correct options.
A)
Yes, because then the explanans might not provide the relevant kind of contrast.
B)
No, it is sufficient that the explanans is contrastive. Contrast in the explanandum is superfluous (and therefore often omitted).
C)
Yes, because explanations that aren’t contrastive are false.
A) Yes, because then the explanans might not provide the relevant kind of contrast.
Each question below refers to an explanandum, and each answer to an explanans. Your task is to fill in the contrastive information in the question (explanandum), such that the answer (explanans) makes better sense.
A)
rather than the bowl breaking into pieces?
B)
but not the mammals?
Why did the vase break into large pieces, (..1..) Because the vase is made of a more fragile material than the bowl.
Why did the dinosaurs go extinct, (..2..) Probably because the asteroid impact rapidly made the global climate unfit for the survival of some organisms, but not so much for the survival of other organisms.
A - 1
B - 2
Which description fits best for each of the five quality criteria of causal explanations?
A) Non-sensitivity (of the explanans)
B) Cognitive salience
C) Precision (of the explanans)
D) Precision (of the explanandum)
E) Accuracy
- The less sensitive an accurate difference-making explanans is to background causes, the more powerful the explanation is.
- The more precise the contrast is stated in the explanandum, the better the explanation is.
- The more easily a given explanation can be grasped, the more powerful it is.
- The explanans must identify all the contributing causes that produced the difference asked for in the explanandum.
- Is whether the explanans correctly describes the actual state or properties of the explanandum in the world.
A - 1
B - 3
C - 4
D - 2
E - 5
Match each explanation with its most prominent explanatory virtue(s). Match one explanation to each right-hand option.
A) Precision (in the explanans and explanandum)
B) Precision (in the explanandum)
C) Accuracy and non-sensitivity
D) Cognitively salient (but inaccurate)
1) Why do trees exist? Because God created them.
2) Why does KTH have a course in calculus in several variables, when Karolinska Institutet does not have such a course? Because students at Karolinska Institutet are not interested in such a course.
3) Why was the train late last Sunday, when the train usually is on time? Because there was a sudden need for maintenance of the train rail, and all trains had to stop and wait for the maintenance to be completed. Maintenances are rare on this train-rail track.
4) Why does Sweden have a fundamental law called the freedom of the press regulation (tryckfrihetsförordningen)? Because the law was instituted by the Swedish parliament back in 1949 as a reaction on the harsh restrictions that governed media during the Second World War.
A - 3
B - 2
C - 4
D - 1
What is correct about the following graph of a causal scenario? Mark all correct options.
X1 –> Y1 –> Z
X2 –> Y1
Y2 –> Z
A)
If an intervention is done on Y2, keeping all other Xs and Ys fixed, then Z will change.
B)
X2 is a contributing cause of X1.
C)
X1 is a contributing cause of Z.
D)
The graph could be describing the following scenario: “If the knob is turned (X1) and the pan of soup is on the stove (Y1), then the stove is connected to electricity (X2); and if also the stove heats up (Z), then the soup is cooked (Y2).
E)
If an intervention is done on X1, keeping all other Xs and Ys fixed, then Z will change.
F)
The graph could be describing the following scenario: “If the knob is turned (X1) and the stove is connected to electricity (X2), then the stove heats up (Y1); and if also the pan of soup is on the stove (Y2), then the soup is cooked (Z).
A) If an intervention is done on Y2, keeping all other Xs and Ys fixed, then Z will change.
C) X1 is a contributing cause of Z.
F) The graph could be describing the following scenario: “If the knob is turned (X1) and the stove is connected to electricity (X2), then the stove heats up (Y1); and if also the pan of soup is on the stove (Y2), then the soup is cooked (Z).
What is true regarding causation? Mark all correct options.
A)
Causation measures the productive influence of one variable on another.
B)
Correlation is sufficient for proving causation.
C)
Causation is an asymmetric relation.
D)
Correlation in a data set is necessary for causation.
A) Causation measures the productive influence of one variable on another.
C) Causation is an asymmetric relation.
What is true regarding correlation? Mark all correct options.
A)
Correlation is a symmetric relation.
B)
Correlation can be a sign of causation.
C)
Correlation measures the association between two variables.
D)
Correlation measures the productive influence of one variable on another.
E)
Correlation is not sufficient for proving causation.
A)
Correlation is a symmetric relation.
B)
Correlation can be a sign of causation.
C)
Correlation measures the association between two variables.
E)
Correlation is not sufficient for proving causation.
Which of these are examples of causal models (causal scenarios) that are compatible with the observation that ice cream sales and the rate of murder in a population are correlated in a data set? Mark all correct options.
A)
When someone has been murdered, people tend to console themselves by eating ice cream.
B)
Both ice cream and murder rates increase when the summer comes because people like to eat cold food when it is hot, and people are out and about more in the summer, making them easier to kill.
C)
When someone has been murdered, this increases the likelihood of revenge murders, increasing the total amount of murders. However, when someone has eaten a lot of ice cream, they become less interested in eating an additional ice cream.
D)
The observation is an artefact of the study and there is no causal relationship at all between the events, nor is there any other common cause.
E)
Eating ice cream makes a person more likely to kill another person.
A)
When someone has been murdered, people tend to console themselves by eating ice cream.
B)
Both ice cream and murder rates increase when the summer comes because people like to eat cold food when it is hot, and people are out and about more in the summer, making them easier to kill.
E)
Eating ice cream makes a person more likely to kill another person.
Suppose that we have found that X and Y are correlated. Now we want to find out whether X causes Y. Which of the following is true? Mark all correct options.
A)
The only way to prove that X causes Y is by performing some kind of experiment where we intervene on X.
B)
Instrumental variable analysis can only be used to show a correlation between X and Y, not a causal relation.
C)
Mill’s method of difference can be used to investigate whether X causes Y.
D)
Mill’s method of difference can be used to exclude that X and Y have a common cause.
C)
Mill’s method of difference can be used to investigate whether X causes Y.
D)
Mill’s method of difference can be used to exclude that X and Y have a common cause.
