Is proof that something happened proof also of what caused it?

Question

Does proof of warming constitute proof of what caused it?

Does the inability to prove that the cause is X or Y equate to proof that the cause is Z?

Answer 1

When something happens we know that something caused it.

Now if all other explanations fail to account for it, that is still not conclusive proof. But there can be preponderance of evidence, a best fit kind of proof.

When we have an event that precedes its alleged cause, even when the alleged cause is entirely a possible cause, we do tend to question the preponderance of evidence. But the fact that an event happened after its alleged cause is not conclusive evidence that an analogous cause preceding the event was not the cause.

Answer 2

Absolutely not. There's lots of things we know DO happen but we don't know WHY or HOW.  

For analogy: when I get home a precious vase is on the floor and broken. There was an earthquake that day, and the dog, the cat, two teenagers, and the housekeeper were there. OK I know it fell, but I don't know what caused it to fall.

Answer 3

no

Answer 4

No.........B.Mack/Sir Isaac Hayes--RIP-Blessings Yahoo

Answer 5

No.

Cause and effect are quite different and can be difficult to prove.

That said, overwhelming circumstantial and/or empirical evidence is usually "good enough".

We drift into philospohy here - at some point, all of us have to accept things that are "unproven" in order to continue to function.

I do not ask whether I can prove that my eyes and brain, when "seeing" a train heading towards me are actually perceiving real, absolute "truth". Instead, I say that there is, for me, no reasonable doubt that my eyes are seeing the train, that the train exists and that I should move out of the way.

It all comes down to understanding that the world is not "provable" in the way that mathematics is. What we have to do is say when is it no longer reasonable or prudent to doubt a thing?

In the absence of any other rational explanation, is it prudent to deny the existence of an observed fact or to accept its existence and accept the best explanation... for now, and continue researching to find a better explanation?