#philosophy #causality >The two fundamental questions of causality are: (1) **What empirical evidence is required for legitimate inference of cause-effect relationships?** (2) **Given that we are willing to accept causal information about a phenomenon, what inferences can we draw from such information, and how?** ~ [[Judea Pearl]] **Causality** is written in our [[Genome]] for survival among lions, but in modern society, we assert **causal** links which are not, we use **causality** a lot but make a lot of errors. >We are evidently ready from birth to have impressions of **causality**, which do not depend on reasoning about patterns of **causation**. They are products of System 1. ~ [[Kahnemann]] It is not a surprise as very few research is done in that area and it's not even taught at [[School]]. It is one of the reason I am extremely [[Skepticism|skeptical]] about the [[Information|information]] I consume, especially when it is about science, they see **causality** everywhere, resulting in false beliefs among the herd. Thus, I avoid like the plague documentaries (I do not consume video content anyway), everything "scientific", they look at a few curves, a few anecdotes and say, **CAUSALITY**. White papers are a much safer source, but still ridden with errors, often, in the end, only the [[Philosophy/Rationality/Models/Lindy Effect]] can save us, only the test of time can reveal **causal** links. >Of the first kind are resemblance, contrariety, degrees in quality, and proportions in or number. But spatio-temporal and **causal** relations are of the second kind Only relations of the first kind give certain [[Philosophy/Epistemology/Knowledge]]; our discerning the others is only probable. Algebra and arithmetic are the only #science. [[Geometry]] is not so certain as algebra and arithmetic, because we cannot be sure of the truth of its axioms ~ [[Bertrand Russell]] #to-digest [[Bertrand Russell]] say, taking the point of view of [[Hume]], >Through [[Association]], if A and B have been constantly conjoined in past experience, the impression of A produces that lively idea of B which constitutes belief in B [[Association]] gives the feeling of [[Mathematic/Causality/Causality]]? But not necessarily **causal**? >[[Hume]] had proved that the law of **causality** is not [[Analytic]] ~ [[Bertrand Russell]] There cannot, in [[Wittgenstein]]'s logic, be any such thing as a causal nexus. "The events of the future," he says, "cannot be inferred from those of the present. Superstition is the belief in the **causal** nexus." That the sun will rise to-morrow is a hypothesis. We do not in fact know whether it will rise, since there is no compulsion according to which one thing must happen because another happens. >I would rather discover one **causal** law than be King of Persia. ~ [[Democritus]] (460-370 B.C.)