Advocates of the scientific revolution which took place in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were prone to anti-Aristotelian polemics. In the increasingly successful mechanical view of nature there was no place for explanations in terms of goals or purposes, except in the domain of human intentional activity. Indeed, some radical advocates of mechanical explanation (for example Thomas Hobbes) extended its scope even to this latter domain. Empiricists, in particular, were hostile to all attempts at explanation in terms of supposed entities or properties not accessible to observational or experimental determination. The search for not only final but also material and formal cause, as these were commonly understood, should be abandoned in favour of a programme of explanation in terms of efficient causality.
Empiricism became the dominant philosophical representation of scientific method, and it has been particularly influential in shaping popular views of the nature of science. The eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume is generally credited with the empiricist view of efficient causality as a regular association, or ‘constant conjunction’ of phenomena in our experience. If events of one type (B) are regularly preceded by events of another type (A), then we may identify A as the cause of B. But this drastic narrowing-down of causal explanation to what could be established by the evidence of the senses only served to underline the gap between scientific claims and their basis in evidence. Hume famously posed the intractable problem of induction; namely, how do we know that regularities in our experience so far will be continued into the future? Or, more generally, how can we make justifiable inferences from our finite evidence to the universal claims embodied in causal laws? Hume appeared content to acknowledge that no such rational justification could be found, but empiricist philosophy since Hume has been littered with failed attempts to solve this problem. It should be noted that, in the absence of a solution to the problem of induction, empiricist philosophy can give no rational justification for counterfactuals, scientific prediction, or for the application of scientific knowledge in new technologies.
But there are other difficulties faced by the empiricist view of causality, now commonly referred to as the ‘covering law’ account (that is, the event to be explained is shown to be ‘covered’ by a law linking events of that type with events of some other type). The most obvious of these is that events may be regularly associated with one another without one being the cause of the other (in the sense of bringing it about, or making it happen). The association may be coincidental; or, more likely, there may be some more complicated causal connection between them (such as that both are effects of some so-far undetected common cause). A related problem is that even where the evidence suggests a direct causal relation between two phenomena, it may not be possible to establish which is the cause, and which is the effect.
Another problem for the empiricist view of causality is that constant conjunctions in the flow of our experience of nature are actually quite unusual. For example, seeds commonly germinate as temperature rises in the spring. However, they do not always do so. Empiricist philosophers respond to this kind of problem by making the account more complicated; several conditions (such as sufficient moisture, changes in day-length, past exposure of the seed to sub-zero temperature, and so forth) may have to be specified in order that the constant conjunction may be stated as a universal law. Which of these conditions we call the cause will depend on the context of the inquiry, as will those which may be regarded as given, or background conditions. It should be noted, however, that the process of drawing up this list of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions will involve experimental methods which are not applicable in many fields of inquiry, including (many would argue) large parts of social science. Here, scientists working under the influence of empiricist philosophy have devised substitutes for experimentation, usually involving analysis of statistical relationships.
Yet another difficulty with the empiricist view of causality is that it does not adequately represent a large and important part of what scientists take themselves to be doing when they search for explanations. For example, observed regularities governing the germination of seeds may be only the starting-point for a scientific investigation of what makes seeds germinate. This investigation, for example, would take us into the internal structure of the seed, its tissues and cellular structure, the genetic mechanisms which regulate the secretion of growth-hormones, and the biochemistry of their action on cell-nuclei. Most of the great conceptual innovations of modern science—gravitation, atomic theory, natural selection, quantum mechanics, and so on—have consisted in postulating underlying mechanisms which explain observable regularities. Contrary to empiricist rhetoric, therefore, material and formal causes continue to play a major role in science. Most modern anti-empiricist philosophers agree on this state of affairs—although realists and conventionalists disagree about how to interpret the situation. The former tend to respect the achievements of science but try to develop more appropriate accounts of the rationality of causal explanation than those offered by the empiricists. Conventionalists tend to see the gap between the evidential basis on the one hand, and the bold and speculative claims of science on the other, as grounds for a more sceptical view of scientific knowledge-claims, seeing these as socio-culturally relative, or as shaped by vested interests.
In the human sciences, the philosophical influence of empiricism has been very strong, especially in Britain and the United States. In the absence of any general utility of experimental method, the search for causal explanation has tended to take the form of statistical analysis of large-scale data-sets. Though methods of data collection and analysis have become extremely sophisticated, it is arguable that the concepts of causality commonly involved still suffer from the general limitations of the empiricist covering law model. However, such methods are also criticized in some quarters, as inappropriate to the distinctive subject-matter of the social sciences. Human social action is purposive and symbolically meaningful. This is the one residual domain in which Aristotelian final causes have not been (and, these critiques argue, should not be) driven out by the advance of modern scientific method. Various traditions of interpretive sociology and anthropology, which are rooted historically in German neo-Kantianism, take this view. In its more extreme forms, interpretivism denies the applicability of causal explanation and so of quantitative methods in the social sciences, favouring instead so-called qualitative methods aimed at interpretive understanding of social communication. See also CAUSAL MODELLING; CONVENTIONALISM; DEPENDENT VARIABLE; INDEPENDENT VARIABLE; INTERPRETATION; REALISM; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS.
Each separate antecedent of an event. Something that precedes and brings about an effect or a result. A reason for an action or condition. A ground of a legal action. An agent that brings something about. That which in some manner is accountable for a condition that brings about an effect or that produces a cause for the resultant action or state.
A suit, litigation, or action. Any question, civil or criminal, litigated or contested before a court of justice.
Cause and Causality in American Law
If an individual is fired from a job at the bank for embezzlement, he or she is fired for cause—as distinguished from decisions or actions considered to be arbitrary or capricious.
In criminal procedure, probable cause is the reasonable basis for the belief that someone has committed a particular crime. Before someone may be arrested or searched by a police officer without a warrant, probable cause must exist. This requirement is imposed to protect people from unreasonable or unrestricted invasions or intrusions by the government.
In the law of torts, the concept of causality is essential to a person's ability to successfully bring an action for injury against another person. The injured party must establish that the other person brought about the alleged harm. A defendant's liability is contingent upon the connection between his or her conduct and the injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence or intentional conduct.
Actual, Concurrent, and Intervening Cause
The actual cause is the event directly responsible for an injury. If one person shoves another, thereby knocking the other person out an open window and he or she breaks a leg as a result of the fall, the shove is the actual cause of the injury. The immediate cause of the injury in this case would be the fall, since it is the cause that came right before the injury, with no intermediate causes. In some cases the actual cause and the immediate cause of an injury may be the same.
Concurrent causes are events occurring simultaneously to produce a given result. They are contemporaneous, but either event alone would bring about the effect that occurs. If one person stabs another person who is simultaneously being shot by a third person, either act alone could cause the person's injury.
An intervening cause is one that interrupts the normal flow of events between the wrong and the injury. It comes between an expected sequence of occurrences to produce an unanticipated result. If someone driving under the influence of alcohol grazes a telephone pole that is rotted and thus knocks it down, the condition of the pole would be the intervening cause of its collapse. This is important in determining the liability of the intoxicated driver. If the telephone company knew or should have known about the unsafe condition of the pole and negligently failed to replace it, the telephone company would be responsible for the harm caused by the falling pole. Depending upon how hard the driver hit the pole, the driver may be held contributorily negligent, or partially liable, for the accident that took place.
An intervening efficient cause is one that totally supersedes the original wrongful act or omission. For example, an intoxicated cabdriver transports a person in a cab with faulty brakes. An accident occurs, which is a direct result of the intoxication rather than the faulty brakes. The injury resulting to the passenger is attributable to the driver's condition. The intervening efficient cause thereby broke the causal connection between the original wrong of the faulty brakes and the injury.
Proximate, Unforeseeable, and Remote Cause
The proximate cause of an injury is the act or omission of an act without which the harm would not have occurred. This is a concept in the law of torts and involves the question of whether a defendant's conduct is so significant as to make him or her liable for a resulting injury. For example, a person throws a lighted match into a wastepaper basket that starts a fire that burns down a building. The wind carries the flames to the building next door. The act of throwing the match would be the proximate cause of the fire and the resulting damage; however, the person may not be held fully liable for all resulting consequences.
An unforeseeable cause is one that unexpectedly and unpredictably results from the proximate cause. The degree of injury sustained is unanticipated or far removed from the negligent or intentional conduct that took place. For example, if a customer in a supermarket irritates a clerk and the clerk pushes the customer out of the way, which results in prolonged bleeding because the person is a hemophiliac, the bleeding is an unforeseeable consequence of the clerk's action. Even if the clerk intentionally pushed the customer, the resulting injury is clearly far removed from the conduct.
A remote cause is one that is removed or separate from the proximate cause of an injury. If the injuries suffered by a person admitted to a hospital after being hit by a truck are aggravated by malpractice, the malpractice is a remote cause of injury to that person. The fact that the cause of an injury is remote does not relieve a defendant of liability for the act or omission, but there may be an apportionment of liability between the defendants.
cause / kôz/ • n. 1. a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition: the cause of the accident is not clear. ∎ reasonable grounds for doing, thinking, or feeling something: Faye's condition had given no cause for concern.2. a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate: she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people. ∎ something deserving of one's support, typically a charity: I'm raising money for a good cause.3. a matter to be resolved in a court of law. ∎ an individual's case offered at law.• v. [tr.] make (something) happen: this disease can cause blindness.PHRASES: cause and effect the principle of causation. ∎ the operation or relation of a cause and its effect.cause of action Law a fact or facts that enable a person to bring an action against another.make common cause unite in order to achieve a shared aim: nationalist movements made common cause with the reformers.DERIVATIVES: cause·less adj.caus·er n.
rebel without a cause a person who is dissatisfied with society but does not have a specific aim to fight for, from the title of a US film, starring James Dean, released in 1955.
So causal XVI. — late L. causālis. causality, causation XVII, causative XV, all — late L. or F. cause vb. be the cause of. XIV. — (O)F. causer or medL. causāre.