Causality and Modern Science MOBI ß Causality and

Causality and Modern Science I regard it as a truly seminal work in this field — Professor William A Wallace author of Causality and Scientific ExplanationThis third edition of a distinguished book on the subject of causality is clear evidence that this principle continues to be an important area of philosophic enuiryNon technical and clearly written this book focuses on the ontological problem of causality with specific emphasis on the place of the causal principle in modern science The author first defines the terminology employed and describes various formulations on the causal principle He then examines the two primary critiues of causality the empiricist and the romantic as a prelude to the detailed explanation of the actual assertions of causal determination Finally Dr Bunge analyzes the function of the causal principle in science touching on such subjects as scientific law scientific explanation and scientific prediction Included also is an appendix that offers specific replies to uestions and criticisms raised upon the publication of the first editionNow professor of philosophy and head of the Foundation and Philosophy of Science Unit at McGill University in Montreal Dr Mario Bunge has formerly been a full professor of theoretical physics His observations on causality are of great interest to both scientists and humanists as well as the general scientific and philosophic reader

About the Author: Mario Bunge

Mario Augusto Bunge fue un físico filósofo epistemólogo y humanista argentino; Bunge por encima de todo fue un filósofo materialista defensor del realismo científico y de la filosofía exacta Fue conocido por expresar públicamente su postura contraria a las pseudociencias entre las ue incluye al psicoanálisis la praxeología la homeopatía la microeconomía neoclásica u ortodoxa entre otras

10 thoughts on “Causality and Modern Science

  1. Valdi Ingthorsson Valdi Ingthorsson says:

    I regard this book as an essential reading for anyone wanting to engage with the philosophical issue of causation It was an important source in my PhD thesis 15 years ago and I still rely on it It marks an early criticism of the empiricist conception of causation and gives a really good historical account of the development of the concept of causation especially of how its development has been influenced by various meta philosophical trends For instance what happened to it when philosophy became convinced that everything must be accounted for in ways that can be confirmed by observation and mathematically uantified It also offers a critical contrast between philosophical views of physical interactions and how these are described by science In particular that philosophy takes interactions to involve unidirectional influence from one object to another while science describes them as reciprocal everything always affects everything mutually This is a point that is particularly relevant for recent attempts to develop so called powers based causation Anyway the book gives a really good background to the issue of causation and offers some cutting edge insights as well even such that only now are getting attention by the philosophical community eg by myself Other reviewers have warned that although non technical the book isn't really an easy read I would like to ualify that by saying that it provides a challenge because it is extremely dense—a lot of information to process in every paragraph—but it is not confused or unclear So it is really admirably concise and clear but to the point that the amount of information per page can become a little overwhelming

  2. Jonathan Hockey Jonathan Hockey says:

    There are some important ideas in this book But he goes over the same point so many times and cloaks it in complicated examples to make it seem ingenious than it in fact is Causality is one form of determination in science Neither does it work for all phenomena nor can it be done away with completely in favour of a purely descriptive approach We need explanatory frameworks in science and we always have them The pretence we can do without such frameworks is simply that a pretence A false pretence to sway people away from uestioning the assumptions at the basis of those frameworks Science does not want competitors in its growing monopoly at understanding reality ontology etc and this is how it disposes of potential competitors By ridiculing people who uestion its basic assumptions with the riposte science doesn't have any basic assumptions its just a description of reality Its a totalitarian kind of tactic that Bunge seems blissfully unaware of the motivation behind it Because he also wants to draw off the power of the monolith of science and worship at its feet And this is why he has to make his point in such a roundabout way so he can disguise the fact he wants science to be our only source for general determinations about reality causality being one of which When he provides absolutely no justification for why science should get this privilege and why we should not just be left as human knowers of reality to use these determinations for ourselves without having to put the stamp of science on them

  3. Kuan Wang Kuan Wang says:

    I found it's uite difficult to read although it's indeed non technical It's a defense and explanation for aspects of causalism It would be beneficial if you read this book with knowledge of empiricism and other schools of causalism while I would say the argument on such topics is a bottomless pit

  4. Paul Paul says:

    Great discussion of the concept of causality in science While it is labeled as nontechnical and I guess it is because it is non mathematical it is by no means an easy read That said it has influenced my thinking and has changed the way that I write about causality experimental design and science

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *