Betsy's Book

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Thank you for all the warm and wonderful birthday greetings. I had a lovely day today and I am looking forward to a productive next year of life. (Yes, JohnRgt, the book is coming along, but slowly. I'll do my best to make it worth the wait.)

May I ask what book that is?

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

[L-C 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

That sounds genuinely interesting. How about a limited edition of signed copies?

Will you do something like releasing the first chapter publicly, like Craig Biddle did for his book Loving Life? Because that sold me on it.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

That sounds genuinely interesting. How about a limited edition of signed copies?

Will you do something like releasing the first chapter publicly, like Craig Biddle did for his book Loving Life? Because that sold me on it.

I've got a ways to go before I would be ready for that, but once I do, my friends on THE FORUM will be among the first to know.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

Is this related to Mills method for determining causal connections?

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

Is this related to Mills method for determining causal connections?

Mill Methods are among several methods for discovering causes I will be writing about, but I cannot give them an unqualified endorsement. A more fundamental question that I answer is why Mill's Methods work -- when they work. The Methods of Agreement and Difference can also lead to false or non-fundamental answers to "What is the cause of X?"

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

Is this related to Mills method for determining causal connections?

Mill Methods are among several methods for discovering causes I will be writing about, but I cannot give them an unqualified endorsement. A more fundamental question that I answer is why Mill's Methods work -- when they work. The Methods of Agreement and Difference can also lead to false or non-fundamental answers to "What is the cause of X?"

One problem with Mill's Methods is that they do not positively distinguish because cause and correlation. Another problem is that they do not always determine correctly which is the cause and which is the effect.

But, as a heuristic, Mill's Methods are a good starting point for a more focused scientific investigation of underlying causes. In physical matters causes manifest themselves as energy flows. Find the energy, find the source and find the sink you have have a cause.

ruveyn

[Paul's Here 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

That sounds genuinely interesting. How about a limited edition of signed copies?

Will you do something like releasing the first chapter publicly, like Craig Biddle did for his book Loving Life? Because that sold me on it.

I've got a ways to go before I would be ready for that, but once I do, my friends on THE FORUM will be among the first to know.

LIKE

[Betsy Speicher 0]

One problem with Mill's Methods is that they do not positively distinguish because cause and correlation. Another problem is that they do not always determine correctly which is the cause and which is the effect.

That's the main problem with it. Mill's Methods can be a useful tool for homing in on what the cause might be, but not for establishing, with certainty, that something actually is the cause. For that, you would need a standard of certainty.

But, as a heuristic, Mill's Methods are a good starting point for a more focused scientific investigation of underlying causes. In physical matters causes manifest themselves as energy flows. Find the energy, find the source and find the sink you have have a cause.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if this is true of some causes in physics, it is not applicable to all causes in other areas. Rather than an energy flow or action-action concept of causality, my views are based on the Aristotelian/Randian concept of causality where a cause is always the nature of an entity that acts or changes.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I'm not sure what you mean, but if this is true of some causes in physics, it is not applicable to all causes in other areas. Rather than an energy flow or action-action concept of causality, my views are based on the Aristotelian/Randian concept of causality where a cause is always the nature of an entity that acts or changes.

But be cautious. Part of the nature of an entity is how it interacts with other entities. Such interactions are action-action processes.

For example: what is the nature of a negative electric charge. It repels other negative charges, attracts positive charges and produces a force in an electric magnetic field that is at right angles to both the magnetic field and the electric field of the charge itself and is proportional in magnitude to the velocity of the charged particle relative to the magnetic field (Lorentz Force Law). One does not consider the electric charge in isolation.

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I'm not sure what you mean, but if this is true of some causes in physics, it is not applicable to all causes in other areas. Rather than an energy flow or action-action concept of causality, my views are based on the Aristotelian/Randian concept of causality where a cause is always the nature of an entity that acts or changes.

But be cautious. Part of the nature of an entity is how it interacts with other entities. Such interactions are action-action processes.

True, but what determines WHY certain things interact as they do? Isn't that determined by what they are? A billiard ball may roll when hit by another billiard ball but not if it is made of Jello or if it is flat on the bottom.

[B. Royce 0]

May I ask what book that is?

I'm working on a book that deals with (1) the importance of thinking about everything in terms of causes and (2) the methods for most effectively discovering and understanding causes.

That's great news, Betsy. Hurry up and take your time and hurry thoroughly! And enjoy every minute!

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I'm not sure what you mean, but if this is true of some causes in physics, it is not applicable to all causes in other areas. Rather than an energy flow or action-action concept of causality, my views are based on the Aristotelian/Randian concept of causality where a cause is always the nature of an entity that acts or changes.

But be cautious. Part of the nature of an entity is how it interacts with other entities. Such interactions are action-action processes.

True, but what determines WHY certain things interact as they do? Isn't that determined by what they are? A billiard ball may roll when hit by another billiard ball but not if it is made of Jello or if it is flat on the bottom.

To ferret out the nature of an entity it is useful to see how it interacts with other entities whose nature is better known.

By the way you might want to refer to:

Peirce, C. S. (1883), "A Theory of Probable Inference" in Studies in Logic).

C.S. Peirce was the first modern logician to deal with cause effectively. Mill did association and correlation.

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

But be cautious. Part of the nature of an entity is how it interacts with other entities. Such interactions are action-action processes.

For example: what is the nature of a negative electric charge. It repels other negative charges, attracts positive charges and produces a force in an electric magnetic field that is at right angles to both the magnetic field and the electric field of the charge itself and is proportional in magnitude to the velocity of the charged particle relative to the magnetic field (Lorentz Force Law). One does not consider the electric charge in isolation.

You don't consider anything in literal isolation. You have to do something to do it in order to observe and measure its attributes. What it is, i.e., its identity, is the totality of its attributes. Inferring the existence and nature of something that you can't directly perceive requires increasingly more complex means of measuring its effects and actions in different circumstances. The scientific means by which that can be conceived and carried out are not covered in the standard Objectivist epistemology of basic concept formation, which does not directly address the meaning of even basic abstract scientific concepts of necessarily inferred entities like an electron. That is beyond the realm of the general philosophy that Ayn Rand was addressing, and is why your observation on the necessity of identifying "interactions" appears to differ from Betsy's approach for a more limited context.

[Jim A. 0]

Your book sounds very intriguing, Betsy. This is a cause-and-effect Universe, and most people don't seem to realize that (which is one reason why I enjoy the short stories of Fredric Brown; they remind the reader of causality, even when Brown invents a universe. Existence by its very nature has rules). And regarding causes in general: I like what some ancient Greek philosopher said about knowing causes and long-term effects: "Small mistakes at the beginning are muliplied later a thousandfold." Boy, is that ever true.

And I'm curious: will your book deal not only with causality among physical entities, but with cause-and-effect in the human consciousness? In other words: if this is a cause-and-effect Universe, does that not mean that causality exists even in the human soul? For example, if you take such-and-such action, that will be the cause, and a certain emotional experience, the next day or years from now, will be the effect. Or if you accept certain ideas, won't there be certain effects--i.e., psychological consequences--down the road? That's something which was not explored, but should have been, in the film A Beautiful Mind. In that story--based on fact--Professor John Nash chooses to believe in some truly cockamamey ideas in the field of mathematics and in economics (and in ethics). But might those ideas not be the cause of what happened to the rest of his consciousness, causing him to literally lose his mind? Is it no surprise that he became schizophrenic, that is, dissociated from reality?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

And I'm curious: will your book deal not only with causality among physical entities, but with cause-and-effect in the human consciousness?

My focus is not on causality as such or in the abstract, but on the necessity of finding and understanding causes as the only practical means of achieving one's own personal values. I call what I am writing "the ultimate how-to book" because enacting the right cause is how to achieve any value (the effect you desire).