“causation”簡單造句，causation造句子

When necessary, the expert will be assigned to determine the causation.

And our understanding of causation is not really based on intelligibility, its based on observation of uniformity.

True, correlation doesn't imply causation, but correlation is often the first step to finding causes, so such studies are still valuable.

Coincidence is not causation.

But if we take David Hume's view of causation then the position is very different.

Much of the second half is taken up with the devilishly tricky business of trying to extract causation from correlation.

Though this may be true, it is unlikely that any reasonably successful theory of causation would support the Cartesian distinction between two different kinds of substance, mind and matter.

In legal discourse causation is particularly important.

Seems very hard to understand; now this is a real problem for Descartes because Descartes thinks causation is ultimately intelligible.

We think that the only way we can learn about causation is from past experience and we want to know what ground we have for extrapolating from past experience to the future.

The paradigm is sort of a standard thought about efficient causation is a mechanical contact.

Actually if you take a Humean view of causation what looks like a really serious problem for Descartes actually goes away.

But it remains to be that our evidence for causation is always a correlation.

Of course correlation is not causation.

But let's suppose the correlations are due to causation: good parenting makes good kids, and day-care makes for very slightly smarter, but also slightly less well-behaved kids.

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.

So his theory of causation was skewed by circumstance, a kin to watching a shipwreck and concluding that the natural and universal state of man is drowning.

But while I'm convinced of the correlation in this study, I'm just not convinced of the causation.