What is causation?

>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?