On The Notion Of Cause

by Bertrand Russell

In the following paper I wish, first, to maintain that the word "cause" is so inextricably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary desirable; secondly, to inquire what principle, if any, is employed in science in place of the supposed "law of causality" which philosophers imagine to be employed; thirdly, to exhibit certain confusions, especially in regard to teleology and determinism, which appear to me to be connected with erroneous notions as to causality.

37 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2020

About the author

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, was a Welsh philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent rationalist. Although he was usually regarded as English, as he spent the majority of his life in England, he was born in Wales, where he also died.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Reviews

[Anne Marie Georgescu · Rating 1 out of 5]

Cum revedeam eu liniștită Prometheus, mi-a venit în minte o întrebare atât de încâlcită, încât nici nu reușeam să o formulez corect... După câteva încercări (”primum movens”, care m-a dus la Aristotel şi la argumentul ontologic, apoi ”is intelligent design probable?”, la care google mi-a sugerat ”is intelligent design pseudoscience?”, ceea ce m-a lămurit pe loc că sunt pe drumul greşit), cumva am ajuns să tastez pe google ”cause of physics rules”, iar de acolo la ”causation in physics” pe plato.stanford.edu, care îl citează pe Russell cu acest articol încă din prima propoziție. Şi uite așa s-a dus dracu' Prometheus, c-am început să citesc acest text, pe care la a doua recitire l-am oarecum înţeles, ce vrea el să spună este pe la final:

[...] the existence of scientific laws appeared as a purely empirical fact, not necessarily universal, except in a trivial and scientifically useless form.

Se pare că nu e singurul care crede aşa ceva. Nici nu ştiu ce notă de goodreads aş putea să-i dau, dat fiind că abia de-am înţeles raţionamentul lui. Dar fiind în complet dezacord, am zis să fiu cinstită şi să-i dau doar o steluţă - I truly did not like it, chiar dacă cel mai probabil asta e doar fiindcă nu am înţeles eu pe deplin ce vrea omul de fapt să spună.

O lectură mult mai interesantă şi mai echilibrată pe tema asta a fost articolul despre cauzalitate in fizica, de pe plato.stanford.edu: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ca..., unde lucrurile sunt tratate foarte serios, ajungându-se chiar și la o discuție despre "causal imperialists".

O fraza clarificatoare de la acest link, despre ideea principala din On the Notion of Cause:

Causal eliminativists argue that there is no metaphysical account of causation compatible with physics or compatible with the completeness of physics and, hence, that causal notions should, as Bertrand Russell (1912) urged, be expunged from the philosophical vocabulary.

M-am întors la Ridley Scott şi la Prometheus, eliminativismul cauzal al lui Russell e prea greu de inteles pentru mine.

[Emilia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Russell dismisses causality with no regard to its importance in psychology, phenomenology and the interpretation or lore of science, specifically quantum mechanics. The essay is fine for what it is but it’s clearly visible that the author has a background in mathematics and views physics as the crème de la crème of empirical research. It’s biased to say the least.

[Russell Stamets · Rating 5 out of 5]

OK, I guess you have to be kind of geeky to love this stuff.