From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> Subject: Re: BHA: DPF C 2.10 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:17:33 -0400 Hiya Ruth-- You wrote: > Meanwhile, Tobin (Hi!) I wondered if you could spell the following out for > me. It seems important, but I don't know how to connect the dots on my own! > You wrote: > >Most seriously of all, > >doesn't your claim that reasons explain but don't generate actions imply > >that retrodiction, which RB presents as crucial to science (science being > >fundamentally explanatory, not predictive), fails to give a real account of > >causation? Let me first back up a moment to quote the statement Howard made which raised the question: > Reasons, then, are a way we explain our actions, but this does not make > them the powerful > particulars that generate them. Howard allows reasons as an explanation for actions, but not as a power that generates them. Such a claim involves distinguishing -- even divorcing -- factors that "explain" events from those that "cause" them. (BTW, I'm setting aside the issue of multiple causality. It makes no difference to this argument whether something is the sole cause of an event, or only one of many.) Granted, the two terms (explain & cause) are not synonyms, but in my view the difference between them is one of perspective: the former is retrospective, the latter prospective. But in either case the "factor" -- again in my view -- is the *same*. Not so for Howard: he says here that the action or powers exerted by an entity can explain an event, without in any manner having caused it. So if reasons are merely "a way we explain our actions" but do not in fact cause them, then reasons are -- well, I'm not sure. I'm tempted to say he means they are fictions, mythological beings, excuses, or somesuch -- in any case, just words, not real causal powers -- but he seems to accept that they may explain correctly Whatever he means, such a division between explanatory elements and causal elements goes to the heart of Bhaskar's view of scientificity, particularly that of the social sciences, for which the criteria of adjuducation "*cannot be predictive* and so must be *exclusively explanatory*" (PON2 p 21, and in many other places; his emphases). More generally, RB views retrodiction ("to possible [antecedent] causes") as a key part of explanation -- the pivotal third "R" of the "RRRE model of explanation" (PON2 p 129). So for RB, causes and explanation are closely linked. And of course Bhaskar uses a causal criterion of real existence: something is real if has causal powers. But Howard splits causes (which are real) from explanations (which apparently aren't), which means that for him, retrodiction (i.e. the retrospective, explanatory approach to scientific analysis) cannot provide an account of real causation. To be brief, I'm saying that if reasons do in fact explain anything, then they must in fact cause them (or at least partly cause them). To say that something may correctly explain without supplying a cause means we have no ability to identify a cause -- at least not in the social sciences, in which knowledge can only be tested through explanations rather than predictions. Hope that helps! Best, T. --- Tobin Nellhaus nellhaus-AT-mail.com "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005