What is causation?

>You can't know nuffin
I'll have the sausage mcgriddle and a side of hash browns please.

this post in no way implies that people can't know anything. It just states that sciencefags on this board do not know the answers to those questions

>s-science doesn't have all the answers, would you like fries with that, sir?

And telling someone they lack imagination is a valid criticism...

You clearly lacķ it more so if you have no counter examples or no one in this thread had. Your point could literally be applied to anyones definition of anything.

So please, go ahead, say something useful.

presenting counter examples is just one method of refuting what he said. a definition for explanation/causality could include all explanations and still be horrible for other reasons, so that means its possible for a horrible definition to have no counter examples. for example, trying to define a car as "transportation technology" would include all cars but also include planes and boats etc.

having said that, I'll criticize his definition of explanation for lacking any mention of what an explanation ought to be good at: conveying an understanding of what is being explained. I'll also criticize it for only having the natural sciences in mind when he speaks of forming models/frameworks. Scientific explanations aren't the only type of explanations so to give a definition to explanations it is wrong to only attempt to describe scientific explanations. could go on and on honestly. there is tons of literature on the topic of explanation and causality that you guys are just completely unaware of yet you think these are just easy questions because you don't think it through.

Understand means that one can grasp the meaning conveyed by the words or actions.
I know I can understand the meaning of causation and explanation because I have an education.
An explanation is the conversion of a concept into language that can carry the meaning to another person so they can understand it.
Causation is a direct link between one observation causing another observation.

While you may be jesting, basic ontological and epistemological knowledge is somewhat rare in STEM.

Take this guy for example, He seems so smug yet he's failed to provide the context required for the word "worth" to have any meaning whatsoever. Worth what to whom? On what spectrum of value? Makes a huge ass out of himself, really common behavior from people who ironically assume they understand logical/linguistic systems instead of taking time to learn how they function.

Or this guy, The implication here is that epistemology doesn't make as much money as STEM, as though that is the objective inherent to learning about/discussing these things. It's as arbitrary a set of goalposts as how many pet parrots STEMfags have vs non-STEM. What does money have to do with this discussion? If it wasn't an entirely random thing to bring up you could argue that usury is superior to STEM because it makes more money, and that probably wouldn't fit in with your religious ideas about inherent value or 'worth'.

idk if causation is very important. points in time need to be logical to create any sort of linearity. if time were a dimension, it would be one that requires all instances of time to fit in between the other points in time.

However I'm not entirely sure time exists. I've had a thought my whole life about what if this moment in time were the very first and everything else is a false memory or other shit along those lines. The whole idea about time needing to be stitched together so linearly seems somewhat unnecessary, as nothing exists right now other than this moment. There's an illusion of time, but no matter what time you are, you will always perceive it to be now. Not that now is very important but let's say I set you on fire, the next 5 seconds would feel pretty fuckin long. And you can't go back and change anything. So if the past existed the way we imagine it to be sorta, then every moment would exist motionlessly. So every moment is just a trajectory of things that happen in the real world but in our heads it makes no difference.

Are you familiar with the do-calculus?
arxiv.org/abs/1305.5506

See also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_equation_modeling
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_causal_model

>Causation is a direct link between one observation causing another observation.
Great effort aside from this one definition containing itself. Might i suggest instead using the phrase "responsible for"?

Fair enough, I guess.
But if you know what responsible means then I would hope you know what cause means, even if you don't know what causation means.

>The implication here is that epistemology doesn't make as much money as STEM, as though that is the objective inherent to learning about/discussing these things. It's as arbitrary a set of goalposts as how many pet parrots STEMfags have vs non-STEM. What does money have to do with this discussion? If it wasn't an entirely random thing to bring up you could argue that usury is superior to STEM because it makes more money, and that probably wouldn't fit in with your religious ideas about inherent value or 'worth'.
lol, no you idiot, philosophy majors being McDick's employees is just a meme from that xkcd edit.
Try thinking of some more straightforward explanations before reading way too deeply into a meme next time.

My definition takes into consideration an understanding inherently because understanding something is being able to reiterate data according to a generative model... the one in peoples minds and brains. Understanding something is being able to predict how concepts relate to eachother and so involves reconceptualising something into a generative model or framework of your "world" (or aspect of it) and the relations within it. This framework would be mental epistemically but doesnt mean it cant be something cohesive and extrinsic like the laws of physics.

I also didnt have sciences in mind at all. All i had in mind was peoples brains embodying a generative model of concepts, relations and the data. Doesnt have to be scientific at all. It can be any conceptual framework as long as it outlines relations between concepts. When i say data i just mean whatever you want explained.

We also integrate frameworks. For most lay people understanding is in the framework of concepts they come across in everyday language or experience. Lay people wont understand science or philosophy unless they put it in their own causal model of the world they relate to.

Another thing is that these models or frameworks tend to be hierarchical in the sense that we like dimension reduction. We like reducing costs of information. We like models that explain data cheaply and can generalise.. else we would probably be satisfied not having explanation for things.

But go on.

This is just filled with tautology.

a caucasian is a white person/thread

You realize theologians are nothing but brainlet philosophers, right?
Philosophy is King why does Veeky Forums hate it so much?