+ Critical Thinking – Rival Causes + What Else Might Have Caused It?  In the previous slide series, Reasons Lead to the Conclusion, we identified a basic model for reasoning.  In that model, we found that the principal movement of an argument ran from the reasons to the conclusion.  We noted that it was important to ensure that there was a logical relationship between the evidence and the conclusion. Reasons Conclusion + Accounting for the Possibility of Rival Causes in Our Reasoning Model  To account for the possibility of a rival cause, we expand the model slightly. In the first model, we had reasons leading logically to a conclusion. In this modified model, we acknowledge the possibility of an alternate argument or explanation. Reasons or Rival Cause Conclusion + When do We Look for Rival Causes?  Critical thinking requires that one consider rival causes whenever one encounters an argument that rests upon a causal connection between reasons and conclusion.   Claims of a causal connection are phrases like these:  X has the effect of …  X leads to … Claims can also made to indicate that a particular process or entity prevents a thing from occurring:  X deters … + Why We Look for Rival Causes  We look for rival causes because we are aware that our first explanation is not always the best explanation.  Believe it or not, there is evidence to suggest human beings have an innate predisposition for explanation. We seem to look for explanation as a natural matter of course.  Unfortunately, we do not have an innate capacity for recognizing that our explanations are inaccurate.  Often, our preferred explanations are those that accord with our cultural beliefs and world views. + Why We Look for Rival Causes  The search for rival causes is motivated by our awareness that we have been fooled in the past by correlations that masquerades as causations and by coincidental occurrences that hinted at deeper significance.  It may be tempting to believe that we are now too sophisticated to make these kinds of errors. We’re not.  Therefore, it is necessary, when we are investigating any phenomenon, to remind ourselves that:  Correlation is not causation.  Association is not causation; and,  Events that are related temporally may not be related causally. + Rival Causes  Explanations that assign causation to events may suffer from:  Confusion of cause and effect;  Neglect of the possibility of a common cause;  Causal oversimplification;  Post hoc fallacy. + Rival Causes: Confusion of Cause and Effect  Confusing the cause of an event with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other as opposed to one causing the other. + Rival Causes: Confusion of Cause and Effect  Example:  It is often assumed that some youth behave violently because they listen to music with violent or antisocial lyrics. Is it possible that they listen to the music because it reflects the violence of their lives? + Rival Causes: Neglect of the Possibility of a Common Cause  The failure to recognize that two events are related because of the effects of a common third cause. + Rival Causes: Neglect of the Possibility of a Common Cause  Example:  Some youth may both act violently and listen to music with violent and antisocial lyrics because those behaviours make sense in the context of their lives (i.e. both the violence and the choice in music are the result of larger cultural influences) + Rival Causes: Causal Oversimplification  Accepting an answer as the answer rather than acknowledging the complexity of causal relations. + Rival Causes: Causal Oversimplification  Example:  For many years, it was assumed that illness and healing could be explained by reference to the natural sciences. Is it possible that medical science might benefit from spiritual considerations? + Rival Causes: Post Hoc Fallacy  The assumption that, if A preceded B, then A must have caused B. + Rival Causes: Post Hoc Fallacy  Example:  The Washington Capitals hockey is playing poorly. One rabid fan chooses to start wearing her hockey jersey when she watches the games. When the team begins to win, she assumes that the jersey is lucky. Is it possible that it is mere coincidence? + End
Purchase answer to see full attachment