Essay on Do You Think a Production Theory of Causality Is Preferable to the Epistemic Theory of Causality? Why or Why Not?

Introduction

It has been claimed in the philosophical literature that the procedures that enable a person to acquire control over her attitudes confer on that individual a claim on self-knowledge (Moran, 2017). The consensus in psychological literature is that individuals have no real influence over the attitude they report. But when they appear to participate in reasoning and explanation, they do so in ways that undermine rather than reinforce their assertions to ego (Paudel et al., 2016). This paper explores the production theory of causality and determines whether the production theory of causality is preferable to the epistemic theory of causality. Further, this paper intends to review that causality is indeed a definitive factor between things wherein the one thing (the cause) contributes to, or reasons, another thing (the consequence) (the effect).

Causality is a universal property (Torun et al., 2019). There can be no occurrences that do not have definite implications and are not produced by other phenomena. Today, there is a universe of cause and effect, or, more metaphorically, progenitors and their descendants. Whenever we attempt to follow the stages of cause and effect to locate the initial cause, it vanishes into the infinity of universal interaction. However, causation is not limited to contact. Causality is just a subset of the concept of universal connectedness. On the other hand, epistemology studies human knowledge’s nature, origin, and limitations from a philosophical perspective (Hofer, 2016). The term is comes from Greek epistm (“knowledge“) and logos (“reason”) and has occasionally been regarded to as knowledge theory. Additionally, epistemology is a Philosophical thought that goes back to the ancient Greeks and has an influence on the contemporary reasoning. Epistemology is among the four fundamental disciplines of philosophy, alongside metaphysics, logic, and ethics, and practically every great philosopher has contributed (Kelly and Licona, 2018). Nevertheless, the universality of production theory of casualty is often rejected because human experience is restricted, preventing us from assessing the nature of links beyond what science and practice know.

The core of causality is that one occurrence generates and determines another. In this regard, causality is distinct from other types of linkage, such as the primary temporal sequence of events or the regularities of ancillary processes. For instance, a pinprick produces discomfort. Mental disease is caused by brain injury. Causality is an active connection; it is a relationship that brings something new to life that transforms potential into reality. A cause is anything active and primary about an outcome. However, “after this” does not necessarily imply “as a result of this.” To assert that there must have been a crime when punishment would be a mockery of justice (Harris and Galvin, 2021).

Any phenomenon is dependent on a wide variety of circumstances to exist. Whereas a cause is just one of the variables that contribute to the occurrence of a particular effect, it is the most active and influential element in this process; it is an interaction that transforms required and sufficient conditions into a result. At times, we mistake the absence of something for a cause. For instance, some diseases are linked to an organism’s lack of resistance or vitamin deficiency. However, the absence should not be considered a cause of illness but rather a predisposing factor. To be adequate, some prerequisites must exist: phenomena necessary for the given event’s occurrence but do not cause it (Hayek, 2018).

Production conditions cannot generate the effect on their own, but the cause is likewise impotent in their absence (Harris and Galvin, 2021). No reason may result in disease unless the organism is sensitive to it. We know that when some microorganisms invade a person’s organism, they may get sick or not. The circumstances determine how a cause takes effect and the type of the consequence. Occasionally, the sole direct and immediate cause of death or damage is a gunshot. However, more often than not, the causes and conditions are closely linked, with some of them serving as subsequent circumstances.

Discussions

According to Engle, (2009) causality is a connection between two temporally contemporaneous or sequential incidences when the first event (the catalyst) culminates in the happening of the third event (the consequence). Whenever we state that “X causes Y” (e.g., fire produces smoke), we imply that Xs are “constantly conjoined” with Ys, (ii) Ys follow Xs and not vice versa, and (iii) there is a “necessary link” between Xs and Ys such that anytime an X happens, a Y must precede. Unlike the concepts of continuity and succession, the idea of correlation is subjective, deriving from our experience of objects or events that are constantly intertwined and achieving success one another in a particular order, instead of from any noticeable attributes of the objects and events themselves (Engle, 2009). This concept serves as the foundation for Hume’s famous induction issue. Hume’s causality explanation is an illustration of a “familiarity” examination. Counterfactual observation, manipulative analysis, and probabilistic analysis are other kinds of analysis.

The epistemic theory provides a counter-argument to conventional theories explaining causality in terms of “difference-making” connections or processes (Russo, 2017). As per the epistemic perspective, causal claims inform us more about the appropriateness of inferences (e.g., diagnoses and prognoses), not about the existence of any physical causal connection similar to distance or gravitational attraction. The epistemic theory is demonstrated to have significant implications for medical practice, particularly in terms of evidence-based causal evaluation, as argued by Russo (2017). Thus it lacks the inclusiveness that can be used for the other disciplines.

Knowledge, both as a raw material for creating new goods and as a resource and store of value in and of itself, has emerged as the primary driving force behind economic activity (Brătianu, 2017). While the society becomes increasingly knowledge based, it is normal to expect the progression of knowledge-building practices and systems. The thesis of this paper is based on the argument between the production theory of causality and the epistemic theory of causality. Further, the preferences of the two philosophical arguments are reviewed to see which philosophical position is more concrete and that which can be used to explore the contemporary issues and why it is more important.

Virtually all epistemological disputes are linked in some manner to knowing (Cortassa, 2016). More generally, “knowledge” covers all aspects, awareness or comprehension of facts (conceptual comprehension), capabilities or things (acquaintance knowledge). Three distinct definitions of ‘science’ tend to create a difference: ‘to know’ (to understand the truth of propositions), ‘to understand as’ (to see where certain actions are to be done), and ‘to understand by experiencing’ (to actively see an item, to be acquainted with it rather than coming into touch with it) (Cortassa, 2016). The first such comprehension, the understanding of proposals, primarily concerns epistemology. In our daily use of the word, all three connotations of “knowledge” may be seen. In mathematical concepts, Two + Two = Four may indeed be known. Therefore, it is also necessary to learn how to combine additional figures as well as how to understand an individual (e.g. knowledge of others or fully understand yourself), where (e.g. home town), what (e.g., cars) or what to do (i.e. add up) (e.g., multiplication). These distinctions, even though not clear in Linguistics, are freely acknowledged in other languages around the world such as the Spanish, the German, Croatian, Dutch and the Nordic countries. The theoretical interpretation and relevance of these language problems remain disputed.

Bertrand Russell has emphasized the difference between ‘Knowledge by Description’ and ‘Knowledge by Connaissance’ in his article On Denoting and his subsequent book Problem of Philosophy (Alemañ-Berenguer, 2021). Gilbert Ryle also emphasizes the difference between knowing how and knowing that in The Concept of Mind (Tanney, 2017). In Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi contends for the epistemological significance of knowing how and knowledge that; through using an illustration of the act of the state of equilibrium involved in riding a bicycle, he suggests that the theoretical knowledge of the physics required to maintain a state of balance cannot substitute for the practical knowledge of how to ride and that it is crucial to understand how both are founded and grounded (Apczynski, 2017). This viewpoint is Ryle’s, who claimed that failing to recognize the difference between “knowledge that” and “knowledge how” leads to endless regress in production.

The term “production” refers to the technical relationship between the number of physical inputs and the number of products produced (Black and Kohser, 2020). The production function is a critical term in standard neoclassical theories. It defines the marginal product and differentiates between allocative and distributive efficiency, primarily emphasizing economics (Genovese et al., 2017). A critical responsibility of the production process is to identify productive efficiency in using antiqued beveled in production and the resulting income distribution to those factors while obfuscating from technical efficiency problems, as a technician or leading organization might understand them economics (Genovese et al., 2017).

Scholars that discuss on intellectual capitalist system, marketing and commodifying intellectual civilizations (Fochler, 2016), proceed by presuming that commerce and science are fundamentally two very separate social realms, each of which organized in accordance with particular cultural rationales. From that kind of point of view, the growth of the knowledge economy leads to dissolving boundaries between the two areas. The bulk of studies concentrated not on the role of scientific axioms in the economy but on how economic logic enters and interprets science. Economic production logics are often aligned with the drive to generate monetary profit via commercialized activity. Insinuating the connection between root causes is a critical ability that individuals employ on a daily basis to comprehend their environment’s architecture. Psychological theories of human causation induction have often emphasized the importance of cognitive development people’s judgments may be linked to the frequency with which an effect involves the activation and presence of a cause.

Academic capitalism, Rosinger, Taylor, Coco, and Slaughter (2016) argue, is a new knowledge regime created by actors “using a range of state resources to build new knowledge circuits that connect higher education institutions to the new economy” (Appe, 2020). They explain how business orientation is becoming entrenched in both research and instruction at academic institutions, replacing an earlier knowledge regime cantered on knowledge creation as a public benefit. Similarly, Mirowski (2019) emphasizes the importance of neoliberal thinking patterns in compartmentalizing academic organizations’ various activities. Also covered is how academia is introduced to the market through the establishment of markets for teaching and research, as well as how scientific research is greatly affected by the commercial property regimes which occur as a result of these economies. In addition, he looks at how universities are commercializing their academic research. While many critics view new economically driven modes of knowledge creation inside academia as displacing conventional academic goals and cultural norms, others, such as Mirowski (2019) see them coexisting in creative conflict.

A growing body of knowledge on intellectual capitalist system and the commodification of scientific knowledge have highlighted the importance of looking beyond directly income behaviour and attitude within universities and directly university-industry interrelations to the implicit but prevalent effects of commercial principles and norms on academic culture. This includes looking at the indirect but widespread effects of commercial laws and rules on school system. It emphasizes the necessity of developing new economic metaphors and conceptual languages that gradually alter how science is structured in institutions and experienced in daily academic life. The increasing necessity for independent researchers and entities, such as organizations or agencies, to competitively position and function undertaking even in non-profit research illustrates this contemporary issue. It is essential to examine how these new languages are adopted across disciplines and locations.

Authors writing on academic institutions’ new public management also contextualize their work by emphasizing their place in the knowledge economy (Appe, 2020). Apart from examining the direct infiltration of economic logic into academic cultures, this body of work is interested in how the governance of educational institutions changes as policymakers and other actors seek to improve their performance in light of the requirements of a globally competitive knowledge economy and this is highlighted by the epistemic theory of causality. Thus, this literature discusses cultural changes that occur not always due to contact with the (economic) outside but instead due to internal restructuring. Techniques for quantifying and measuring the performance and production of academic work have been characterized as integral to these developments (Appe, 2020). The fundamental thesis of this body of work is that accounting methods and ideals, which originated in financial and corporate settings Pillet-Shore, (2017) have “become a key organizing element in the control and regulation of human behavior” in academia (Pillet-Shore, 2017). These new tracking and accounting methods for academic labor are intended to increase openness and public confidence. As Appe (2020) contends, although, they also constitute part of a larger neoliberal ideology aimed at extending behavioural and technological elements of the marketplace to the government sector. He shows how the quantitative assessment of academic performance via measurements of research and teaching quality makes a call centered on strategic competition for the best position of assets compared to others instead of the trade of goods. The establishment of measures and following monitoring of academic performance against any of these parameters will create the competitiveness calculation infrastructures in such heterogeneous markets as noted by Merry (2021). The importance of such measurements is internalized by individuals and groups in those “audit cultures” rather than through external control (Pillet-Shore, 2017). Fochler (2016), following Weber as cited by Karlsson and Månson (2017), stated in 1990 that “academic science is increasingly organized along the lines of the traditional capitalist workplace”). According to Fochler (2016), the changing ties between leading researchers and their employees in this specific context formed a capitalist social structure. Main researchers would change the manner scientific knowledge is produced via their financing and posts through understanding as guided by the production theory of causality. Researchers of the production theory of causality philosophy would seize scientific credibility (sometimes known as “investment”) by linking their identities with publications “pretty easily supported. Further, Fochler (2016) as claimed that by doing so, the commercializing of knowledge as means of product would disconnect the production theory of causality scientists by preventing them from maintaining the principles that drive their work. This is a totally distinct kind of analysis from the accomplishments of the previous section. Instead of analyzing the impact of capitalism on the academic development of knowledge, capitalism is utilized as a sociocultural context to examine non-monetary patterns of value assigned to and amassed in the formation of understanding and knowledge. Latour (2017) in earlier STS projects suggested that the credit cycle, which is presented by the capitalist acquisition cycles as frameworks for understanding the patterns of scientists’ decisions. Researchers establish credibility as per their method by producing data and converting it into discussions, writings and references in order to improve the acknowledgment of their colleagues. This excellent reputation may then be utilized to get grants and reinvest the money into additional staff, equipment and information. Busco and Quattrone (2018) considered the each scientist’s main objective to continue this process and even increase its production and changeover. In my opinion, the production theory of causality is more needed here due to its ability to explore, go beyond the rigidity of the epistemic theory of causality. Exploring dependence is a concept found in explanatory theory. Causal dependency is an explanatory concept that states that A causally explains B through a causal relationship between cause C and consequence E. Confusing causality and explanations in this manner leads to two related errors: identifying omissions as causes and accepting causality plurality.

A correct comprehension of causality as production clarifies both the metaphysical of causality and the unique role in explanations, accountability, and proper planning. Each has its own unique causative species (causal interpretation, causal culpability, etc.), wherein correlations play a significant part but differ from those performed by causality (Macleod, 2019). The fundamental issue in perceptual epistemology is to elucidate how perception may provide us with the knowledge or factual information about the outer environment, about entities other than ourselves. This problem has previously been addressed in a questionable argument that such an awareness and explanations are impossible to achieve. Cynicism to the outside world highlights a number of epistemological problems, such as the nature and epistemic role of awareness, and the dilemma of how awareness may bring us into contact with a mind-independent reality. The difficulties highlighted are important to more generally understanding knowledge and discourse, particularly separate from their connection with disdain.

Conclusion

The production theory of causation combined with knowledge of how exclusions are not truly causative makes more sense of causality’s involvement in liability. This needs clarification, since the law does apply responsibility for omissions and preventions selectively. Significantly, and perplexingly, responsibility for failures presupposes the existence of a prior ability to fulfil. Causation is interpreted in true belief in the epistemic theory of causality as noted by Bernecker, (2017). This viewpoint is similar to that of numerous epistemic probabilistic philosophies that construe probability in the sense of plausible persuasion, such as contextual Bayesianism, empirical Bayesianism and particular concepts of oversimplified probability. Epistemic conceptions of probabilities must illustrate how these probabilistic assumptions should fit the available information. Epistemic probabilistic frameworks, for instance, typically suggest that opinion strengths must be modified to opportunities as evidence emerges for situations. Similarly, an epistemic theory of causation must explain how causal beliefs should be consistent with the given evidence. The primary objective of this article is to provide such an explanation.

Specific other probabilistic allegations are interpreted as expressing something about the resilience of belief by epistemic theories of probability: roughly speaking, an allegation including the likelihood of a patient recovery being 0.7 is accurate inasmuch as it is reasonable to assume that a person would recuperate to a level of 0.7 in view of existing evidence. (Wilde and Williamson, 2016). Epistemic probability models see a belief’s strength as reasonable or rational only if it meets specific standards. These standards are often selected because adhering to them results in epistemically or pragmatically optimum thoughts that minimize epistemic inaccuracy (Pettigrew 2016) or prevent avoidable losses (Berto, French, Priest, and Ripley, 2018). Different epistemic theories of probability have different views on what constitutes good strength of conviction because they apply different standards.

References

Alemañ-Berenguer, R.A., 2021. On the gnoseologic principles of Bertrand Russell.

Apczynski, J.V., 2017. The Projects of Michael Polanyi and Charles Taylor. In Charles Taylor, Michael Polanyi and the Critique of Modernity (pp. 53-69). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Appe, S., 2020. Internationalization in the context of academic capitalism. Research in Comparative and International Education, 15(1), pp.62-68.

Bernecker, S., 2017. A causal theory of mnemonic confabulation. Frontiers in psychology, 8, p.1207.

Berto, F., French, R., Priest, G. and Ripley, D., 2018. Williamson on counterpossibles. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47(4), pp.693-713.

Black, J.T. and Kohser, R.A., 2020. DeGarmo’s materials and processes in manufacturing. John Wiley & Sons.

BRĂTIANU, C., 2017. Foreword. The knowledge economy: the present future. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(4), pp.477-479.

Cortassa, C., 2016. In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), pp.447-459.

Engle, E., 2009. Aristotelian theory and causation: The globalization of tort law. GNLU Law Review, 2, pp.1-18.

Fochler, M., 2016. Variants of epistemic capitalism: Knowledge production and the accumulation of worth in commercial biotechnology and the academic life sciences. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(5), pp.922-948.

Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Figueroa, A. and Koh, S.L., 2017. Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66, pp.344-357.

Harris, J.R. and Galvin, R., 2021. Act-Consequentialism and the Problem of Causal Impotence. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 55(1), pp.87-108.

Harris, J.R. and Galvin, R., 2021. Act-Consequentialism and the Problem of Causal Impotence. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 55(1), pp.87-108.

Hayek, F.A., 2018. The theory of complex phenomena. In Critical Approaches to Science & Philosophy with a new introduction (pp. 332-349). Routledge.

Hofer, B.K., 2016. Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct: Advancements and challenges. In Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 31-50). Routledge.

Kelly, G.J. and Licona, P., 2018. Epistemic practices and science education. In History, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 139-165). Springer, Cham.

Kouatli, I., 2018. Emotions in the cloud: a framework architecture for managing emotions with an example of emotional intelligence management for cloud computing organisations. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 9(2), pp.187-208.

Macleod, J.A., 2019. Ordinary causation: a study in experimental statutory interpretation. Ind. LJ, 94, p.957.

Mirowski, P., 2019. Hell is truth seen too late. boundary 2: an international journal of literature and culture, 46(1), pp.1-53.

Moran, R., 2017. The philosophical imagination: Selected essays. Oxford University Press.

O’Shea, H. and Moran, A., 2017. Does motor simulation theory explain the cognitive mechanisms underlying motor imagery? A critical review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, p.72.

Paudel, S., Longcore, T., MacDonald, B., McCormick, M.K., Szlavecz, K., Wilson, G.W. and Loss, S.R., 2016. Belowground interactions with aboveground consequences: Invasive earthworms and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology, 97(3), pp.605-614.

Pettigrew, T.F., 2016. In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual review of psychology, 67, pp.1-21.

Rosinger, K.O., Taylor, B.J., Coco, L. and Slaughter, S., 2016. Organizational segmentation and the prestige economy: Deprofessionalization in high-and low-resource departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), pp.27-54.

Russo, F., 2017. Causation and correlation in medical science: theoretical problems. Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine, p.839.

Tanney, J., 2017. Volume Introduction: Gilbert Ryle on Propositions, Propositional Attitudes, and Theoretical Knowledge. Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 5(5).

Torun, H.M., Durgun, A.C., Aygün, K. and Swaminathan, M., 2019, October. Enforcing causality and passivity of neural network models of broadband S-parameters. In 2019 IEEE 28th Conference on Electrical Performance of Electronic Packaging and Systems (EPEPS) (pp. 1-3). IEEE.

Wilde, M. and Williamson, J., 2016. Evidence and epistemic causality. Statistics and causality: Methods for applied empirical research, pp.31-41.