Causal principle (philosophy of science)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term causal principle is used in philosophical literature, mostly from the fields of philosophy of science , epistemology or metaphysics , for theses that can be reproduced in different specifications "in everyday language using expressions such as 'every event has a cause ' or 'everything becoming is caused' " .

Interpretations of the causal principle

Different proposals to analyze the meaning of the vague phrase "every event has a cause" represent different variants of the causal principle. These more precise proposals are particularly dependent on the underlying concept of the causal relationship . For example, it is disputed whether the causal principle also applies to events that can only be explained by statistical principles or only by laws with limited areas of application. If, for example, the causal principle is formulated as the thesis “that everything that happens in nature is subject to valid laws without exception”, the latter is excluded.

The linking of the causal principle with invariably valid laws of nature corresponds to widespread attitudes towards the philosophy of science of the 19th century, such as those expressed in Pierre-Simon Laplace's Théorie analytique des probabilité and John Stuart Mill's thesis of the uniformity of nature. In the early 20th century, however, the debate about the philosophical significance of quantum mechanics in particular led to broad criticism of the traditional interpretation of the causal principle and weakened alternative formulations, e.g. B. “There is an adequate causal explanation for every event” - a thesis which, however, presupposes that the terms “event” and “adequate causal explanation” have already been satisfactorily analyzed. A causal principle understood in this way is weakened in the sense that the validity of the causal principle does not presuppose a general determinism as a necessary condition.

In addition to questions of definition, the methodological and ontological status of the causal principle is particularly controversial in the research literature. Methodologically, the question arises whether the validity of the causal principle can be empirically checked or proven a priori . In addition, the causal principle can be interpreted in the context of an epistemological realism in such a way that its acceptance obliges to include the relevant laws as natural laws in the ontology. Anti-realistic interpretations, on the other hand, usually do not understand the causal principle as an ontologically binding statement, but as a research- guiding methodological norm : one should conduct scientific research as if the causal principle were valid.

Applications and historical events

Aristotle already formulated the causal principle: "Everything that arises comes from something, from something and as a certain something". ( Metaphysics VII 7, 1032a)

Thomas Aquinas put forward several justifications for the existence of God. One of them can be interpreted to mean that a. presupposes a causal principle, namely that everything in the world is the result of something else.

The principle of sufficient reason can be interpreted as a variant of a causal principle.

For Immanuel Kant , the causal principle was part of structures of experience . It is based on our knowledge of individual objects and facts of empirical reality (exists “ a priori ”). Kant regards the causal principle as the principle of the understanding, which results from the application of the pure understanding concept of the connection of cause and effect to the pure form of perception of time: "All changes happen according to the law of cause and effect." ( Immanuel Kant: AA III, 166 )

The thesis of the validity of the causal principle a priori is adopted by many representatives of transcendental philosophy, but also of neo-scholasticism, e. B. also Josef de Vries .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Wolfgang Stegmüller : Scientific explanation and justification , problems and results of the philosophy of science and analytical philosophy, Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin - Heidelberg - New York 1969, chap. VII. Causality Problems: Cause and Effect. Causal laws. Causal modalities. Causal explanations. The general causal principle. Determinism and Indeterminism , pp. 428-517, here p. 431.
  2. ^ Moritz Schlick : Natural philosophical considerations on the causal principle . In: Die Naturwissenschaften 8/24 (1920), pp. 461–474.
  3. ↑ Pierre-Simon Laplace: Théorie analytique des probabilité , 1812; John Stuart Mill: A System of Logic , Book 3, Chapter 3, Section 1, 1843
  4. ^ Ernest Nagel : The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation , 1961, chapter 10
  5. ↑ Stegmüller 1969, p. 466.
  6. ↑ Cf. u. a. Erich Becher : Humanities and natural sciences studies on the theory and classification of the real sciences , Berlin 1921, p. 261ff. Joachim Klowski: In contrast to the causal principle, is the concept of causal a priori origin? . In: Journal for Philosophical Research: ZphF. Vol. 26.1972, 1-4, pp. 56-65.
  7. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA III, 166  / KrV B 232.
  8. ^ J. de Vries: Basic questions of knowledge , Johannes Berchmans Verlag, Munich 1980, ISBN 3-87056-025-8 , chap. 8 (“Synthesis a priori and causal principle”), p. 131ff. See e.g. B. also Adolf Heuser: Neuscholastic attempts to justify the causal principle . Pöppinghaus, Bochum-Langendreer 1930.

literature

  • Johannes Hessen: The causal principle , Reinhardt, Munich [u. a.] 2., ext. 1958 edition.