I need help on this paragraph!?

Question

Hi

I need help on understanding this paragraph!

If you can, please help on the QUESTION since i am really stucked!!!

Analytic philosophers of history most commonly approached these issues on the basis of a theory of causation drawn from positivist philosophy of science. This theory is ultimately grounded in Humean assumptions about causation: that causation is nothing but constant conjunction. So analytic philosophers were drawn to the covering-law model of explanation, because it appeared to provide a basis for asserting historical causation. As noted above, this approach to causal explanation is fatally flawed in the social sciences, because universal causal regularities among social phenomena are unavailable. So it is necessary either to arrive at other interpretations of causality or to abandon the language of causality. A second approach was to define causes in terms of a set of causally relevant conditions for the occurrence of the event—for example, necessary and/or sufficient conditions, or a set of conditions that enhance or reduce the likelihood of the event. This approach found support in “ordinary language” philosophy and in analysis of the use of causal language in such contexts as the courtroom (Hart and Honoré 1959). Counterfactual reasoning is an important element of discovery of a set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions; to say that C was necessary for the occurrence of E requires that we provide evidence that E would not have occurred if C were not present (Mackie 1965, 1974). And it is evident that there are causal circumstances in which no single factor is necessary for the occurrence of the effect; the outcome may be overdetermined by multiple independent factors.

QUESTION:

The author argues that the idea of causation in history is "fatally flawed." Do you agree? Why or why not?

Answer 1

You're really stucked!  What exactly is being "stucked" mean?

It seems the first question is rather simple >> Do you agree with this verbose point of view, or do you not?  >>>That would be a yes or no answer--no Ronald Regan reply of, "Gee I can't remember " will do.  

Now, part #2 is really the meat of the matter  here > Why do you agree with such pomposity?  Or why would you not?  

The point to remember here is that the more erudite philosophers will tirelessly  debate the most  esoterica matters, providing endless edification for anyone who has the patience to put up with pedantic point of view.  

Now it seems (& I like this part) that the analytical philosophers  feel>>that causation is nothing but constant conjunction.  Just what does that mean?  Conjunction > occurrence together in time or space : concurrence.

But the author states >  this approach to causal explanation is fatally flawed in the social sciences, because universal causal regularities among social phenomena are unavailable.  Which I take to mean that if we are lacking certified scientific evidence, conjecture will not do.

And the summation is >> And it is evident that there are causal circumstances in which no single factor is necessary for the occurrence of the effect; the outcome may be overdetermined by multiple independent factors.

My thought here is if you're going to immerse yourself in the minutia of what happened from a scientific viewpoint, you first have to have a theory to evaluate & test your hypothesis.

While the author is suggesting that a: there is no recorded evidence of something happening, is explainable due to the slowly developing cognitive powers of man at the time where he was more concerned with what Maslow refers to as the primary needs of survival.  

And b: the statement that >there are causal circumstances in which no single factor is necessary for the occurrence of the effect; > is so broad, you can not dispute it.  You would need examples to determine if the inference follows the premise.  Otherwise, you have what's called in logic, a non sequitur.  

Just remember, you could not of had George W. Bush, without George Herbert Walker Bush.  

Hope that helps.  But you interpret any way you like.  Oh, & try to keep the paragraphs short next time > it makes for easier reading if I have to read some BS on basis of a theory of causation drawn from positivist philosophy of science.

Believe me, this will have little bearing on your life in the (hopefully) many years to come.

Answer 2

Simplified version (at least as far as I understood): The law of causality (since A happened, B happened) is flawed (according to the author), especially when used in social sciences; it could just as easily be that since C happened, B happened).

In other words, nothing is "for sure", something could happen "just because" or for a multitude of reasons.

Now, do you agree?  Why or why not?